Where do we go from here, Mr. Harper?

So, where do we go from here? I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that the political landscape in Canada has been altered significantly. As is the case with any big change, some people are worried, others are excited, and many are uncertain what it will mean.

I decided to use this blog post to provide the (unsolicited) advice I would give to the government Mr. Harper will now form. Why? Whether we like it or not we are now in this as a country for the next four years.

We need to shift our focus away from politics and towards government. We need to consider how Canada can win, and not how parties can be beaten.

This is a conversation we haven't had for five years. Yes, we have had discussion about the recession and how best to respond. But beyond that, the success or failure of parties has dominated our discourse when we should have invested in discussing Canada. This cycle needs to end now.

So with that in mind, I decided to use a few blog postings to provide my views and advice to our MPs, new and old. Today, I will start with Mr. Harper and the Conservatives.

1. Read the results honestly and respond in kind

Whether you agree with it or not, there remains a strong sense that your politics and policies over the past five years have been guided by instincts which at their heart have been partisan and adversarial. It would be wrong, therefore, to read a majority government as an endorsement of that approach, or even of the policies you have espoused.

There is enough in the results to suggest that many Canadians do not whole-heartedly endorse the Conservative platform or agenda. In Quebec there is a strong desire for change that did not include the Conservatives. In Ontario, vote-splitting and a concern among more centrist Liberals about the NDP fed your results.

This reality needs to be recognized and reflected in your approach to Parliament and to the views of others. We have moved beyond a focus on the base or the swing ridings - you are now a government for all Canadians. Show Canadians you recognize this as the privilege that it is.

2. You have what you want, but be mindful how you use it

We have spent too much time talking about the need for a majority to "get things done." To say this diminishes the role that collaboration and dialogue are intended to play in a democracy.

Power is used best when it is used with discretion, thoughtfulness and consideration. Put another way, just because you think you can do what you want doesn't mean you should. All majority governments make this mistake, but in truth yours will be watched more carefully that those in the past.

There is a reason it took three tries to get a majority. How you use the power it provides is therefore important.

Reach out. Seek opportunities to build a consensus; to get the views of others. Make these things your first instinct. Canadians did not provide a majority as an excuse for parties not to work together. Show us you recognize this point and the role you can play in helping to repair our politics.

3. You didn't run a national campaign, but you have to think about the nation

Part of your success in #elxn41 resulted from a five year campaign which focused on swing ridings, keeping your base energized, and attacking your opponents. While this helped you win, it came at the expense of a conversation about what Canada needs to succeed.

As a majority government, ask yourself whether Canada needs a tough on crime agenda to succeed in the 21st century. Where does this sit, relative to how we consider health care, or how we position Canadian companies for success in a world that has changed dramatically? To which issues should our energies be directed - the environment or issues like long-gun registries?

You have an opportunity to engage Canadians on a broader range of issues than the ones which have traditionally fuelled your approach to policy and government. This doesn't mean thinking big, but it does mean thinking more long-term, moving beyond what has too often been parochial.

***

I have written before about the distinction between politics and government. The challenges and opportunities we face demand the best of government, not the worst of politics. This does not have to mean active or expansive government; but it should mean engaged, open, collaborative and constructive government.

We need to move beyond the cycle of partisanship, short-sightedness and attack. The election around the corner has come and gone, and there is now a long road ahead. How we walk along it will have huge repercussions for Canada.

Quite. A. Night.

So there it is. Canadians have finally spoken and #elxn 41 has provided results which offer up a lot of food for thought. The headlines are simple:

- the strong, stable Conservative majority that Mr. Harper sought;
- the rise of the NDP as the official opposition;
- the decimation of the Liberals; and
- the virtual elimination of the Bloc in Quebec.

But like so much in this campaign, the headlines only tell part of the story.

I am going to take a night to consider the results further, but there are some initial observations I would make.

1. The Harper majority would have been less likely had the NDP surge not occurred. The degree of vote splitting, particularly in Ontario, was decisive. In many, many ridings it took Jack to give Stephen what he wanted as many centrist Liberals went Conservative, presumably out of concern about the NDP.

2. What will Mr. Harper do? Expect to see over the next few years a continued erosion or scaling back in the role government plays in our everyday lives. Through tax cuts and a strong nod to provincial responsibilities, the ability of the federal government to act decisively has already been changed - this trend will continue.

3. What happens when the NDP wake up tomorrow? In their "break out" years, Reform or the Bloc each had about 50 neophyte MPs elected. The NDP have elected a sizeable number more. Are they ready to oppose? The good news, I guess, is that they will have 4 years to learn. It will be a steep learning curve for a party that is now effectively in the role of "government in waiting."

4. And what of the Liberals? Their base is eroded and public subsidies are not long for this country. As a result, their ability to re-build will be limited. This puts all questions on the table. Can they reassert themselves as a centrist party or are we now seeing the starting point for a re-alignment of the left?

5. And finally, Quebec. The virtual elimination of the Bloc has the potential to be a watershed moment in the province and in Canada. Quebec remains effectively "out of the government."

So, some random thoughts as we look into tomorrow and beyond. I will be writing more, but would welcome other's observations and commentary.

Above and beyond what I have mentioned above, #elxn41 has served as an important reminder about engagement. The engagement we began to see in this campaign needs to be sustained, nurtured and grown. We owe it to ourselves to take the time now and invest in our democracy and the role we play as informed participants within it.

Poll-Axed

By this time, virtually everything you read concerning #elxn41 and the final days before the vote is squarely focused on the rise of the NDP. We are seeing discussion of their national numbers, the story in Quebec and the growing sense that Jack Layton could replace Mr. Ignatieff as the Official Leader of the Opposition.

Yes, it's been quite a week.

For the Liberals, how the next few days play out could have a significant impact not just on how they do on May 2, but on their future. So, what happened?

To start, the Liberals tacked left and looked to make the campaign about a choice between the Conservative agenda and one which was more squarely focused on families. While they quite rightly argued that a sound economy should be rooted in strong a social foundation, their message did not catch.

This isn't to say that people don't like the message. The programme they put forward was intended to appear to NDP voters, women and students. Initially their strategy appeared to be working. They stayed on message, ran a disciplined campaign, and were receiving plaudits.

However, throughout the initial period leading up to the debates it appeared that voters were torn between the message and the messenger. Mr. Igantieff as a leader was simply not getting traction.

Queue the debates and the performance of Mr. Layton. While I was not overly impressed by him, many were - particularly in Quebec. By displaying equal measures of forcefulness and joviality, Mr. Layton looked principled and committed while Mr. Igantieff often appeared angry. It was Mr. Layton, and not Mr. Ignatieff who looked more likely to do what many Canadians want - find a way to make things work.

In hindsight, I think an element of his message was not so much "us or them", it was more "let's just get it done." In so doing, he appeared more above the fray (though not entirely).

This appears to have resonated most strongly in Quebec. If the polls are correct, the NDP could be on its way to an historic breakthrough in the province. For many, the NDP appears to offer a third way; a break from the traditional federalist-sovereignist divide.

They are offering a progressive, social democratic programme which is aligned with the views of many Quebecers. They are also increasingly speaking to a demographic that is removed from the old squabbles on national unity.

Think about this for a moment: We are 16 years removed from the last referendum, 31 years since the first referendum, 35 years since the historic PQ election and more than a generation since the Quiet Revolution.

For many voters in the province, the battles of the past are history; they represent the narrative of a different generation. The problems and opportunities of today are real and pressing and that is where they would prefer their politicians direct their energy. The Bloc looks faded in such a light; the NDP looks new and more engaged.

Of course, we still have a few days until the vote and much can happen. Ground game is an issue for the NDP, as is the possibility that the prominence of their story and the predictions of success could push people back to the Liberals. There are also real challenges with the costing of the NDP platform.

Mr. Ignatieff will hope that this proves to be the case. Despite running well and demonstrating passion and eloquence, he has been "poll axed" over the past week. Each new poll seems to make the story worse and the prospect of a bad defeat seem more likely. Momentum is a funny thing. It's hard to get, but when you do it can often take on a life of its own - a band wagon effect. When it's lost, it is very, very difficult to get back.

Mr. Layton appears to be benefitting from the former; Mr. Ignatieff suffering from the latter. One way or the other, May 2 is now shaping up to be more interesting than we thought at the outset of the campaign.

The Curious Case of Canadian Complacency

This time next week, Canadian politics watchers will be sitting through their version of the Oscars or the Super Bowl. Yes, it will be election night and at the end of it we will know who won, by how much, who's in and who's out. We will then inevitably shift the the conversation towards asking "now what?"

With an eye towards the dust settling on #elxn41, I have found myself thinking about the notion of complacency and the impact it is having on our politics. This is not a new thought for me, but I think that events during this campaign and in fact in the months preceding it have given it fresh life in my thinking about the challenges we face in Canada.

Simply put, complacency is challenge number one. If we do not (a) understand it and (b) address it, then we are limiting our ability as a country to address all of the other challenges on the national list. And if we fail to re-set our levels of engagement, we will never truly be able to seize the opportunities in front of us.

The first question I ask myself is "why are we the way we are?" From where does our complacency originate? I have a couple of observations.

First, I believe in Canada we suffer from a form of economic complacency. Geography dealt us a strong hand. We have an abundance of natural wealth - historical wealth (lumber, fish, minerals) and future-oriented wealth (energy, potash). Geography has also graced Canada by virtue of our proximity to the U.S.

This good fortune has pre-disposed the country towards having a resource-based economy. It also contributed to the growth of a branch-plant economy which benefitted from the risks taken by others and by their entrepreneurial mind set.

I don't mean to suggest that we have succeeded or prospered by accident or without effort. Quite the contrary - our history has many stories of enterprise and vision.

However, I do think that as a country we have been content to reap the benefits of our geography when we could have done more to invest in them. We've done well, but we could have done so much better. A Canadian parable of the talents, if you will.

Second, I believe we suffer from political complacency. We believe in government, but don't hold it to account. We know what we want, but assume someone else will figure out how to deliver it. Our lack of understanding about how our system of government works has been laid bare in the past 18 months - sadly, at the very time such understanding is genuinely needed.

Why? I think there are a few reasons.

The dominance of majority governments - particularly through most of the 70s, all of the 80s and and 90s and the first half of the 21st century - has given Canadians the "luxury" of not needing to focus on what happens in Ottawa in the periods between elections. Yes, the noteworthy items (free trade, national unity) drew the requisite attention, but stability and predictability meant we did not need to be as engaged. We did not need to understand the system under which we are governed.

We also have an approach to policy in Canada which, while perhaps appropriate, can also be mind-numbing. The American theorist Charles Lindblom called it the "science of muddling through" and what he meant is that policy is typically made incrementally, in small steps. It is endlessly worked and re-worked.

This has been the Canadian model. Slow, reasoned, cautious? Yes. But engaging? No. This approach can work when one has a sense of destination or a vision. Whatever you want to say about the U.S., there is a strong sense of America.

However, in Canada I think we have incrementalism without the vision; without the sense of purpose. We have failed to tie the various policy streams together under a shared sense of what it means to Canada.

So what do we have?

Prosperity driven by geography, political stability, and an incremental approach to policy that lacks vision and common purpose. Taken together, I believe these characteristics have engendered a complacency mind set in Canada. I think they have shaped our levels of engagement, affected our see on the role of government, and limited our sense of the role we can and should play in our democracy.

Today, one week before an election that will one way or the other shape how we view government, what are we going to do about it? Are we prepared to remain complacent? Or are we ready to step forward and become more active participants in our democracy?

The atrophy of complacency or the momentum that flows from engagement? It is our decision.

How's the view (from outside the bubble)?

Having spent a few days outside of Ottawa I've had an opportunity to hear what people are saying - what they think about the election and the various campaigns so far. My take is that this election is a non-event for many.

Why do I say this? First, getting people to share their views on the election has been akin to pulling teeth. "It's not something I have thought about..." has been a familiar refrain.

Second, for those that have thought about it the sense is often one of apathy. For these people, the refrain tends to be "what does it matter what I think, nothing changes." The people in these first two camps have tended to represent the majority of the views I have heard.

For a guy watching politics, this can be depressing stuff. It shows a lack of engagement and interest in an election which could, depending on its outcome, have a major impact on a range of issues which I believe these are people are concerned about or in which they will have a fair degree of interest.

For the parties, this type of view also favours one person: Mr. Harper. A lack of engagement means a lack of interest in change. It means that the criticisms leveled at the government have not resonated.

That's the "above the fold" story. What about "below the fold?" First, the NDP story that is dominating the national political discourse does not appear to be playing out on the ground in London. While there is one NDP incumbent, don't count on any other candidates joining caucus.

Second, Mr. Ignatieff as a person does not appear to resonate with many voters, even when his policies do. I have had Conservative attack lines about Mr. Ignatieff "being in it for himself" recited to me by decided Liberal voters. This is not a positive sign for the Liberals.

Third, there are people who understand the opposition refrain about Mr. Harper and his approach to politics and democracy. However, they appear prepared to look past this and give him the nod due to concerns with the alternative.

So after a few days outside of the bubble of Ottawa, my take is that the majority of people here are not seized by this election or by any of the narratives being presented to them. This bodes well for Mr. Harper, but perhaps not well-enough to deliver him what he covets most - a majority.

London Calling

The notion of life inside the Ottawa-bubble and outside of it has been discussed from time to time during this campaign. What captures the attention of people in Ottawa, or those who tend to follow politics, is often different than what seizes most Canadians.

With that in mind, your intrepid blogger has decided to temporarily pack-up and burst out of the bubble. Good-bye Ottawa and its "corridors of power"; hello London, Ontario and its suburbs, schools, farms and factories.

To borrow from the the Clash (who borrowed from the BBC), "This is London Calling."

There are three ridings in London (West, North-Centre and Fanshawe), and a number of others in the areas of southwestern Ontario that surround the city. Within the city, the three ridings are split evenly among the Conservatives, Liberals and the NDP. Outside, it is more or less a sea of blue.

Over the next couple of days, I am going to do my best to learn what matters most to the people here. Do the main points of the Liberal narrative resonate - do people care about the contempt vote and the democracy questions? Are the priorities in the Liberal platform their priorities?

Conversely, is the Conservative narrative getting traction? Is this seen as an unnecessary election? Are people worried about a coalition? Do they feel that the economy would be jeopardized by a change in government and that we therefore need a Conservative majority?

Finally, is the NDP story that has been filling the political airwaves evident here? Do we see momentum behind Jack Layton and if so is it sustainable over the last week of the campaign? As of now we are not seeing it, but remember London was the home of David Peterson and it went NDP in 1990...

Right now, local polling and the sentiment I have picked up seems to suggest that London and the surrounding areas will vote more or less as they did in 2008. Interestingly, the few ridings that are considered too close to call are currently held by the Conservatives and could flip to either the Liberals or the NDP.

Some things to consider:

1. The university and college dynamic. There are lot of students in this area (Western and Fanshawe in London, plus Guelph, Waterloo and Laurier), and we are seeing evidence that the youth vote is more active in 2011. Whether and how this group votes could be very decisive.

2. Local issues. In London, there are issues concerning possible funding for a local aircraft manufacturer (Diamond Jet) which people feel may hinder Ed Holder's re-election as the Conservative candidate. In Simcoe-Grey, we have the Helena Guergis story. How issues like this play out on May 2 may have more impact than views on learning passports, corporate tax cuts and the G20.

3. Turn-out and ground game. I don't have the figures on turn-out in 2008, so I am not certain whether the city and area was above, below or more or less consistent with the national result of 58.8. However, the demographic in the area - London in particular - is interesting. We have a strong mix of seniors and youth, "born and bred" and immigrants, white-collar and blue collar. Which groups are engaged and decide to vote will be decisive, which puts pressure on the local riding associations to know who their voters are and to get them out.

So, with that in mind off I go to talk, listen and get a sense as to what we can expect from a part of Ontario that is conservative by nature, if not always by political affiliation. My sense is that the people of London and southwestern Ontario will throw us few surprises.

We'll see if I am right...

Jack in the (ballot) box?

Many will have woken up this morning to the news that the NDP is on the move up in the polls. One has them leading in Quebec (CROP), another has them tied nationally with the Liberals (EKOS) and all show a positive trending for Mr. Layton's party.

I say Mr. Layton's party for a reason. A huge driver of the move appears to be the popularity and credibility voters see in Mr. Layton. This was something that we started seeing after the debates (particularly the French debate) and which has been slowly building over the past week.

So what should we watch for?

1. Sustainability - will the NDP be able to keep these numbers up for the final 12 days?

2. Ground game. Getting your vote out in places where you expected to do well is one thing. Getting it out in places where you really didn't think you had a chance is another. Is the NDP ready for election day in, for example, Quebec?

3. The Liberal numbers in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. If these continue to fall, they have a problem.

Keep an eye on http://threehundredeight.blogspot.com/ for their usual, excellent analysis. As of this morning, they are not seeing these polling numbers translating into seat changes, but it make take some time. Again, sustainability is critical.

All to say, watch this space to see whether things revert to type or whether voters think of Jack at the ballot box.

Bursting Bubbles and Ground Games

Election day is now 12 days away, and the campaign is heading into the final phase. Between now and May 2nd we will have holidays (Passover and Easter), which will further cut into campaign schedules as candidates become increasingly focused on two things: polls and the clock.

When I look ahead and start consider what we might expect to see over these remaining days, I come down to a few things that I will be looking for.

1. Is the Liberal message getting traction; are they bursting out of the bubble? A huge part of their campaign has focused on the transgressions (real and otherwise) of the Conservatives. For their part, the Conservatives have tried to portray any accusations as process-related, Ottawa-centric non-events. Their gamble has been that they won't resonate in a meaningful way with the average Canadian.

The Liberal "rise up" refrain and the fact that they are persisting with it (and actually looking to take it to more people through a just-announced 30 minute "special" on the weekend), suggests they feel they are getting traction. If they are right, we have something interesting on our hands. If not, their chances move from slim to something less.

2. Building on the point above is the Liberal (and to a lesser extent NDP) message on health care resonating with voters. This is definitely an "outside the bubble" issue, and one that essentially comes down to trust. The Liberals have come out hard and need this to work, particularly among women voters - a key demographic for them.

3. How will we know what's happening with respect to points 1 and 2: the polls and the behaviour of the parties. An important thing to look for over the remaining days is whether the Leaders are staying on message, or whether they appear to be in "spray and pray" mode. If it's the former, it suggests that polling (and in particular their internal polling) is telling them they are getting traction. If it's the latter, they are in damage-control mode.

Also look at where the Leaders are spending their time. If you see Mr. Ignatieff spending a lot of time on the island of Montreal, or in downtown Toronto know that they are playing defence. If, however, you see him in ridings that could be turned to the Liberals it's because they feel they have a real chance. Similarly, if Mr. Harper is with his incumbents he is playing defence. If he's in Liberal ridings, he feels he has a chance.

As for the polls, as mentioned previously pay particular focus to the provincial results. The national average is becoming less meaningful. The real story is what is happening in the provinces - tightening in BC, Ontario and Quebec in particular.

4. Look at how parties are approaching the NDP. This applies to the Conservatives (in BC), the Liberals (in Ontario) and the Bloc (in Quebec..though you probably knew that one!). Messaging in respect of the NDP and Jack Layton will let you know who's worried, where and why.

The last thing I want to mention concerns the ground game. At some point in the very near future, it will cease to be about platforms, spin, talking points, visits, media coverage and twitter. It will become all about the ground game and the ability of a party to get its vote out.

The Conservatives are very strong in this area. A huge part of their messaging - in campaigns and while governing - has been focused on their base, keeping them energized and ready. That's why they are such good fund-raisers and that is an advantage for them on May 2.

Going into the campaign, this was an area of concern for me when I looked at the Liberals. Today, I am not as concerned. Throughout this campaign they have demonstrated a surprisingly strong ability to mobilize their people. They are also showing themselves to be more adept at using social media; something which, combined with their "rise up" message may be more likely to mobilize the youth vote.

So, what am I looking for? Bursting bubbles and solid ground games. What about you?

Confidence Games

I just watched Mr. Ignatieff's interview with Peter Mansbridge, and would say it's a fair bet that his comments on coalitions and how our system of government works will get most of the air time. However, in listening to his comments it occurred to me that over the past 2 years we have allowed rhetoric and spin to obscure our view of how one forms a government.

One's ability to govern flows from one's ability to hold the confidence of the House of Commons. That's it. The election simply populates that House with MPs representing parties - we elect MPs from which a government is formed.

After the election, the party with the most seats will be given an opportunity to form a government. They will do this by demonstrating to the Governor-General that they can obtain the confidence of the House. If they have 155 seats or more, this is easy - it's a majority government. If they have fewer, it becomes more complicated. Doable, but more difficult. That's the minority government.

The scenario being discussed now is what happens if Mr. Harper forms another minority government and at some point - perhaps on a budget - it is defeated. Such a defeat would indicate that the government no longer has the confidence of the House; that the majority of the elected officials did not agree with the proposals put before them.

The question put to Mr. Igantieff is whether at that point, would he try to form a government. Would he propose that he could maintain the confidence of a majority of MPs.

Here's the thing - there is nothing wrong with this scenario. This is how the system is supposed to work. Yes, the viability of his option is something that should be considered. The steps he would need to take to establish and maintain confidence would need to be understood for the Governor-General to offer him the opportunity.

But aside from that, this is the way our Parliamentary democracy works. Unfortunately our 2-year fascination with the word coalition has pushed this simple fact to the back pages. We have allowed what is appropriate and legitimate to be characterized as dangerous and illegitimate.

Now I fully expect that the spin machines will seize on Mr. Igantieff's remarks; that they will try suggest that it is he who has a "hidden agenda." This is unfortunate.

As voters, we should possess an understanding of our system and how it works. By informing ourselves we can take a step away from spin and towards engagement.

Poll Vault: The Story of the NDP

Up until now, the commentary on #elxn41 (including here in the ivory towers of A Guy Watching Politics) has focused on the battle between the Conservatives and the Liberals. One is the party of the government; the other the party of the government in waiting.

So far, so good. It all made sense.

While nothing has changed the fact that the next Prime Minister will come from one of these parties, events over the past seven days have changed the landscape.

The strength of the NDP was always going to be an important variable. We knew that going into this campaign. What's interesting is not that the NDP are an important player, it's the shift over the past week.

For the first two weeks or so, the NDP had a poor campaign. They received limited visibility and their message was being drowned out by the Liberal and Conservative campaigns. Heading into the debates, a major talking point was the falling levels of NDP support, particularly in vote-rich Ontario.

That was certainly the top-line story. Below this line, we also had the story of the NDP polling well in Quebec. Something that read well and was interesting, but perhaps not compelling given the broader national narrative.

Enter the debates.

I am the first to admit that I am not a fan of Mr. Layton. He's affable and passionate - I get that. However, his message and style don't resonate with me. I find it sometimes too flippant and the economics too idealistic. All said I'd have a beer with him, but I don't think I would vote for him.

However, putting aside my views, I think during the debates (particularly in French) he did come across as natural - impassioned, interested, and at times above the fray. I think that resonated with voters in Quebec who are tired of the same old struggle, and with voters in Ontario who had moved Liberal in the first two weeks.

The result is that over the past few days we have seen an NDP "poll vault." They have reversed the losses in Ontario (at the expense of the Liberals) and have made gains in Quebec (at the expense primarily of the Bloc, but also to the detriment of the others). Add to this the resonance that the anti-HST campaign is having in BC and you have the potential for something meaningful.

Today Angus-Reid had the Liberals and NDP both at 25% nationally. Other polls show a similar resurgence, though not a tie with the Liberals.

The two weeks left are an eternity. The NDP numbers nationally may not mean much in the grand scheme of things. However, the NDP numbers in Ontario, Quebec and BC could be significant. The question is how?

Will this last? Will it result in greater vote-splitting on the left, allowing the Conservatives to come up the middle? Or do the polling numbers translate into NDP seats? Put another way, how is the Conservative quest for a majority affected by a resurgent NDP? What does this mean for the Liberals?

Tell me what you think. How will this affect the final two weeks of the campaign?