Questions of Judgement

This time last week, the NDP was the story with Jack Layton's announcement about his health and decision to temporarily step down. On Mr. Layton's recommendation, Nycole Turmel was selected and confirmed in the role as Interim Leader of the Opposition.

Fast forward to this week and the NDP is again the story. However, this time it is the revelations that Ms. Turmel was a supporter of the Bloc since 2006 and that she only relinquished her Bloc membership to run for the NDP which are the focus of politics watchers.

Cue the duelling talking points of spinners woken from their summer slumbers.

From my perspective, there are two stories here. The first is one of judgement and whether the NDP (and Mr. Layton in particular) failed to properly consider how these revelations would play out. The second story is about how we consider party allegiance and support in a modern democracy, and whether we are too quick to judge.

It's about the NDP's judgement...

By all accounts, Ms. Turmel's previous support for the Bloc was known by Mr. Layton and his leadership team. It was also known that she was a long-time supporter of the NDP.

In many respects, this is understandable as both are traditionally strong supporters of organized labour. Moreover, NDP and Bloc positions in many areas related to social policy and social justice are quite similar.

The principal (and not inconsequential) distinction is on the question of national unity. This is where judgement comes into play.

Having witnessed the past two and half years of Canadian politics where the government was always quick to attack what it saw as a separatist-socialist coalition, one could argue that the NDP hierarchy should have been more sensitive as to how all of this would play out.

This is a very important time for the NDP as they adjust to their new role as Official Opposition. Consistency, staying on message and not letting internal issues become the story are important objectives as they look to develop their brand as the government-in-waiting.

Knowing this, the NDP hierarchy should have taken greater care to insulate themselves from the attacks the party and its interim leader are now facing. Should this persist into the fall and Mr. Layton's return is delayed for however long, the party will have been wounded by something completely avoidable.

Are we judgemental?

The second story is less about the NDP and more about the reaction of the other parties, and the eagerness with which fingers are pointed and judgement is made.

- In every election since 1993, all parties have eagerly sought the votes of Quebecers who in the past voted for the Bloc. In so doing they did not seem concerned about what political allegiances these voters may have had in the past.

- From 2006-2008, the Conservatives expended great effort and public money on currying favour with a portion of the Quebec electorate which was more nationalist in nature. Their goal was to try re-build the Mulroney-era coalition of the West and soft-nationalists in Quebec. In so doing, they were not particularly concerned with past allegiances.

- Many Conservatives were supportive of the ADQ, given its more conservative economic agenda - despite the fact that the ADQ was lead by a member of the "Oui" campaign in the 1995 referendum.

- The Liberals welcomed back a former BQ member (Jean Lapierre) and appointed him to Cabinet (Transport), while Liza Frulla (former Minister of Canadian Heritage) was open about voting yes in the 1980 referendum.

The simple fact is that in Quebec politics, for a variety of reasons, you are going to have a sizeable number of people who have supported both the federalist and separatist parties - often for reasons which have little or nothing to do with federalism or separatism.

If this reality does not make one's vote less desirable, it should not let one's candidacy or leadership be attacked in the manner it has been.

***

The NDP should have foreseen this week's circus and either avoided it or got out ahead of it. That they did not shows a lapse in judgement which one hopes does not set them off in September on the wrong foot - we need a strong Official Opposition.

However, to say that they should have foreseen the reaction should not validate that reaction. There is an element of hypocrisy and a tendency to be judgemental in the talking points and talking heads we have seen today.

As our society changes, our politics and views about parties will change. I suspect that there will be more movement and coalescing around issues, and less iron-clad party support in the future. Are we ready for it?

Taxing Questions

Over the coming days, we will learn whether U.S. lawmakers have been able to reach a compromise on how best to tackle the federal deficit. Already this week we have seen both President Obama and the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, make their respective pitches to Americans.

While all sides agree that spending needs to be curtailed, there are differing views as to by how much and in what areas. That there are differing views on government spending is normal and in fact healthy. We are about to embark on a similar such debate here in Canada.

However, where the divide between the two sides is more pronounced and the debate potentially less healthy is on the question of taxes. More specifically, should taxes be increased to bolster government revenues?

The Democrats would favour some increases as part of what the President has called a balanced approach. The Republicans favour no increases. At all.

This intransigence on the question of taxes, while rooted in the Republican mindset, is becoming further entrenched due to the presence of the Tea Party - a group which is fast becoming the conscience of Republican party. Republican lawmakers have both an eye forward to the 2012 elections and the memories of the 2010 elections, and know that they need the support of the Tea Party.

On or before August 2, we will have a better sense as to how this conflict of views plays out. In the weeks that follow, we will also see how the markets, rating agencies and the public respond.

As we watch this all unfold, it is useful to consider whether there are any lessons for Canada. To date, the discussion as far as Canada is concerned has been about the parallels between what is happening in the U.S. today and what happened in Canada in the 1990s, when we embarked on a deficit reduction program.

To be sure there are useful comparisons that can be made, particularly as it relates to how to implement program cuts. However, the area which interests me and which I think we need to consider more fully in Canada is the question of taxes.

The Conservative Party of Canada does not favour tax increases - quite the opposite. Their long-term focus is on further reducing taxes. This is the mindset that drove the GST cuts, and is the mindset which will further govern how they manage Canada's economy.

There are real similarities here with the Republican position. Unfortunately, in the U.S. this position has over the past three decades effectively taken off of the table one of the major tools available to a government to manage the affairs of state. Pity the politician in the U.S. who openly contemplates a tax increase, regardless of the need it could serve.

Unfortunately, this "stigmatization" of taxes is becoming more and more a part of our political discourse in Canada. We are not far from the point where the merits of a policy initiative or course of action take a back seat to rhetoric on taxes.

When considering any new initiative, costs have to be considered and choices need to be made. One of the choices should be around whether taxes are an appropriate and effective means of funding an initiative. The U.S. has taken this off of the table, which in part has fueled the crisis in which they find themselves.

A lesson for us? We would do ourselves a favour in Canada if we pulled back from the current path we are on, and resist the temptation to take taxes off of the table. Good policy requires a thoughtful consideration of all of the options.

The NDP Needs Jack, But So Does Canada

Earlier today Official Opposition Leader Jack Layton announced that he is temporarily stepping aside to receive treatment for a second bout of cancer. Both the announcement and the appearance of Mr. Layton surprised many, as he appeared to be in fine form as recently as June when Parliament broke for its summer break.

The immediate reaction can be broken into two categories. The first was sympathy and concern for the well-being of someone who is respected in politics. Canadians, by and large, like Mr. Layton - his enthusiasm, positivity, and ability to be committed to his principles without being blinded by them.

The second category of reaction is more focused on the impact this could have on the NDP. As one commentator noted, he has become more than just the leader of the NDP - for many voters he is the NDP. While all parties thrive or falter based on the popularity of the leader to some degree, the story is more pronounced for the NDP.

The success of the NDP in May was largely driven, particularly in Quebec, by the appeal and popularity of Mr. Layton. And now he is temporarily stepping aside in what continues to be a very formative period for this new NDP.

For caucus members who should still be basking in the glow of their May breakthrough, the immediate future holds innumerable questions about Mr. Layton's health. Similarly, for a party which should be looking to the future with hope, there is a danger of becoming somewhat introspective. This is the challenge with having a leader-based narrative - they become the story.

But for me, the issue is broader than that. Mr. Layton is not just the leader of the NDP. He is the Leader of the Official Opposition and the principal critic of government.

His role tasks him with the responsibility of holding the government to account; with offering Canadians an alternative perspective on how their money is spent, their environment is protected, their security ensured and their country governed.

As we consider the challenges, opportunities and choices in front of us, we need strong voices to share all perspectives and alternatives. You don't have to agree with his politics to see that Mr. Layton offers such a voice.

So yes, the NDP needs Mr. Layton back and ready for action. But so does Canada.

It's My Planet Too

Imagine you owned a home and that home required major work. A new roof, foundation repair, something structural and unquestionably expensive. You know it will be hard on your wallet to get it done, so you decide not to - even though the reasons for doing it are compelling and the cost of not doing anything could be far greater down the road.

Instead you decide to spend money on aesthetic improvements, like painting, or on amenities. Things that make you feel better when you are in the house, but do nothing to address your real problems. An outside observer would call this decision-making shortsighted.

Heads-up Canada, this is exactly how we are making climate change policy in our country.

Jeffrey Simpson has just written a good piece in the Globe and Mail on how Australia is trying to come to grips with the climate change question. His piece accurately describes the challenges a government faces when trying to tackle a long-term problem with solutions which are seen as expensive, and which do not deliver a "visible" benefit for some time.

Canadian policy-makers have been trying to get their head around this issue since the 1990s, with little success. Yes we ratified Kyoto, but did not take any of the difficult decisions that meeting our commitments required. We have done small things to improve and promote energy efficiency, but have studiously avoided meaningful debate on the oil sands and pricing carbon.

Sadly, despite being a country with a lot at stake, our federal government has played at the margins on an issue which could define the next century. Policy-makers have mastered the art of having "half the conversation". Some examples...

- The government has made great fanfare about its plans for asserting and protecting our Arctic sovereignty, yet has not highlighted the fact that climate change and its effect on sea lanes has helped to make the arctic such a pressing issue.

- Tremendous effort has been expended dealing with natural disaster at home and abroad, but there has been little if anything from government about the role climate change is playing on weather patterns and disasters which are becoming less freak and more the norm.

- Energy policy, and in particular discussions on the oil sands, rightly highlights the security aspect of Canadian energy but wrongly fails to acknowledge the trade-off in terms of the environmental impact of oil sands development.

By only having half the conversation, our policy makers are limiting discussion about the linkages between climate change and a host of public policy issues. Why? Because of the potential political ramifications. Those who do try are attacked and marginalized, first by their political opponents and then by a public which too often is more concerned with the here and now and not the long game.

Not for the first time, it may come down to the provinces to move the yard sticks in Canada. Lead by British Columbia and Quebec, the provinces (and their stateside colleagues) may be able to implement policies which demonstrate leadership and de-mystify the economic impact arguments of this opposed to taking real action.

As promising as that may be, it also serves as another indictment of federal policy on an issue which is no longer emerging. Climate change is here and Canadians need to see the Government of Canada tackling the issue with the seriousness it deserves.

So to MPs currently on summer break, please take a moment to consider what climate change might mean for the people in your riding. Think about it from a health issue, consider the economics (short-term and long-term), consider the impact of weather on food production. Think about your role as a steward for this country; about being a government holding Canada in trust for current and future generations.

Please. It's my planet too!

You can't have responsible government without responsible voters

The topic of voter apathy popped back into the news in recent days. Statistics Canada is reporting 23% of all eligible voters did not vote because they were not interested. I find this frustrating.

There are lots of things I don't do because I am not interested. I don't see movies or read books that don't interest me. I don't visit or vacation in places for which I have little interest. You get the point.

However, there is a category of things that I choose to do to even if they don't necessarily interest me. I follow news stories that don't always interest me, but which are nevertheless important enough that I feel I should stay informed. I talk with people at events - as they do with me - even if the topic isn't interesting. This is about being polite.

Finally, there are things I have to do whether they interest me or not. We all have some of that at work, for example.

So where does or should voting fit in? There is no easy answer.

Some argue that the root of our apathy lies in the dysfunction of our politics; that the squabbling, partisanship and the focus on "in the bubble" issues have created a disconnect between the voter and the democratic process. People aren't connecting because (a) the issues are not theirs and (b) the theatre of our politics is off-putting.

Another argument is that the way we vote is out of touch with a 21st century communications world. Lines, booths and slips of paper don't cut it in a 140-character, high speed, "give it to me quick world." The youth voter, the argument goes, is disconnected from the process of voting.

My thoughts?

I agree that our politics is flawed and is too often showing a disconnect between what is important to Canadians and what is discussed in Ottawa. Scandal increasingly trumps substance, and it is something which all of the parties have allowed to happen (and in some cases preferred to happen). I also agree that we should look for ways to introduce more technology into the voting process.

However, I think too often we are looking for easy answers and opportunities to point fingers. I get frustrated when I hear someone did not vote because it takes too much time, or because the issues did not appeal to them. A decision not to vote is being made the fault of someone else.

For me, these arguments reveal a disappointing absence of a sense of responsibility; responsibility which should be inherent in a healthy democracy. To say "make it compelling for me", or "make it easier for me" suggests that participation in the democratic process of your country should be driven by the same motivations behind going to a movie or choosing what to watch on television.

The problem of voter apathy is a collective one. Our politics needs to be more responsive to the challenges and opportunities we face. Our process needs to embrace 21st century technology. And we, the voter, need to step outside of our current mindset and rediscover the concept of civic duty and responsibility.

The birth of responsible government in Canada was a significant milestone in our development as a nation. However, for responsible government to work you need responsible voters. Interested?

A Royal Mess

In recent days, our papers, tweets and news stories have been filled with the latest surrounding the royal visit to Canada. Well, here in the hallowed halls of A Guy Watching Politics, we decided to get on board with such regal themes - but in our own way.

Now, before any of you monarchists reading this shout "off with his head", I should clarify. When I say "royal mess" I am not referring to the state of our constitutional monarchy. What I am referring to is the global economy; something Canada needs to see stabilize or our deficit reduction plan could get royally...you know.

By now we all know the lines. The recent financial crisis was the worst faced since the Great Depression - true. But Canada fared better than most western countries due in part to the regulatory framework governing its financial institutions - also true.

This is not to say we didn't suffer. A quick look at our deficit and our job loss numbers will illustrate how difficult this was for Canada. Yet while it may have cost us a King's ransom, in the end we came through better than many of our global colleagues.

So what is the danger now?

Recall that we entered the initial crisis in relative good economic health. Yes, we were already running a small deficit, but by and large we were in good shape. The measures taken in the 1990s helped ensure we were able to better withstand the crisis than others with poorer public finances.

However, should the global economy enter into another such crisis, this time arising from sovereign debt in the EU and the US, what tools are left to help us? Interest rates can't be lowered and governments do not have the capacity to take on more debt, as states are running huge deficits.

In 2008-2010, we had monetary and fiscal space within which to act. This is no longer the case - our toolbox isn't empty, but we have used the best tools already. Not just Canada, but everyone.

This in part explains the strong interest in states like Canada and the U.K. to review public spending. Governments need to get back to a stronger financial footing sooner rather than later, in the event that things do not improve. If economic growth cannot be counted on to get you out of deficit, public spending has to be addressed. Sadly, this truism is lacking from our political discourse.

***

So dear reader, when you see yourself getting transfixed by the latest comings and goings of the royal visit, consider the following:

- the global economy is in somewhat of a royal mess;

- we paid a King's ransom in terms of job loss, lowered interest rates and massive injections of government dollars to survive the initial crisis;

- today, governments' ability to withstand a similar such crisis is more limited as they have already used the tools available leaving them in a position in which all the King's horses and all the King's men might be unable to fix the economy again.

All to say, our policy makers face some hard facts and tough choices. What are they doing to prepare Canada and Canadians for what might come our way? This should be a major topic of discussion, but it isn't. This is something on which government should be engaging public opinion. They are not.

I know it isn't always pleasant for a government to seek views and open debate on such controversial topics. However, as the saying goes heavy is the head that wears the Crown...

80 Days of Summer (give or take)

So, the summer recess has begun and our MPs have started to fan out across Canada. The ins-and-outs of Parliament are about to be replaced with the summer BBQ circuit, as MPs head home to meet with constituents. What makes this recess interesting is that it is the first one in some time where MPs can go home and not be haunted by the election around the corner.

Think about that for a moment.

Every recess since 2004 has occurred under a minority government. When MPs went home, they did so knowing that the people they were meeting might well be asked for a vote at any time. They therefore went home armed with talking points and backgrounders. It was like being on a job interview for seven years.

Not so today. As we enter into the summer recess, we do so knowing that the cards have been dealt and that an election will not occur for some time. So if our returning politicians are no longer doing their utmost to secure our vote, what can we expect? I would offer the following observations.

1. While last summer the Liberals embarked on their "summer express", this summer is more likely to be more of a "cap in hand" tour. The party needs to raise funds and build membership. Without the national theatre of QP or the spectre of an election, the Liberals will need to work hard to remain visible.

2. For the NDP, they are on their "summer honeymoon", with MPs still basking in the glow of their significant electoral gains. However, their attention will need to quickly turn towards two things.

First, new MPs need time to better connect in their ridings. Many are unknown quantities and will therefore want to use this break to build up credibility. It's an investment an MP makes to avoid being a one-hit wonder.

Second, they need to balance their focus on constituency and local issues with time spent learning about Parliament, about their responsibilities as a MP and about their party's positions on key issues. For these MPs, school is not out - it is only just beginning. They will want to hit the ground running in September.

3. And what about the Conservatives? Victors in the election, a majority in the House and Senate, and the strong possibility of a decade in power. With all that, might we expect a summer off? Not at all.

Their summer will, I suspect, see the party shift into consolidation mode. The Conservatives will want to build on the gains they made, and will continue their focus on ethnic communities and in key ridings.

However, don't be surprised to see select MPs starting to float trial balloons about government policy; to gauge their constituents' reaction to potential Conservative positions on the economy, health care and the Senate.

Of course, each of these parties will also spend their summer with one eye turned to the five provincial elections scheduled for this fall: Newfoundland & Labrador, PEI, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Party members, including MPs, will lend a hand and do what they can to support their provincial counterparts.

***

For many of us, the summer is a chance to re-charge and to re-connect. It's no different for MPs, particularly now that we have electoral peace for a few years.

However, each party will enter into the summer with a few key goals - raise money and maintain profile (Liberals); bask and learn (NDP); consolidate and sow seeds (Conservatives). And they will focus on the provincial elections.

For me, the provincial elections are a big story waiting to happen. The 2011 book on Canadian politics has two chapters. Chapter One was the May 2 federal election. Chapter Two will be the elections in those five provinces. Depending on the outcomes, Canada could look quite different by the end of the year.

Quiet Riot (or when the NDP came to Vancouver)

We have seen a lot in the media in recent days on the hordes who descended on downtown Vancouver - young, energetic people caught on film as they came together and for a short while took over a city.

Yes, the NDP convention came to town this past weekend to do what convention attendees do. They celebrated successes, debated policy resolutions, attended hospitality suites and (after a morning gatorade and greasy breakfast) promised to all who would listen that the future was theirs.

The two topics over which the most ink was spilled (is ink still used - perhaps we should characters typed?) were the debate over the use of the word "socialism" and the debate over a future merger with the Liberals. It tells you a lot about the NDP and its strong affinity to its roots that the former generated as much interest as the latter.

Some good observations on the socialism issue can be found here, via Kathryn Blaze Carlson at the National Post:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/06/20/what-are-the-ndp-talking-about-when-they-talk-about-socialism/

For me, the issue over whether to drop the inclusion of the word in the party constitution preamble exposes the dilemma that the NDP now faces. As I mentioned in my recent "Canada's conscience or government in waiting" post, the NDP faces a choice. Does it want to be more of a beacon or conscience, advocating on select policy issues as it recognizes that it will never gain power? Or does it want to become a government in waiting, which means that it must start to appeal to a wider base?

If the conclusion is that the latter is a realistic goal, then the party has an obligation to consider all means necessary to get there. The word socialism carries with it a lot of baggage, and some members of the party have therefore concluded that it can be an obstacle to power.

In many respects you cannot blame them. The Conservative rhetoric since late 2008 has branded them socialists. Having seen how repeated branding by your opponent contributed to the Liberal demise, it makes sense that the party should look to limit their opponent's opportunities to attack in this fashion.

However, it will be in the area of policy and the credible options they can present the electorate that will ultimately make the difference. Once you cut away the words, the party needs to present an alternative that appeals to voters.

This leads to the second item of debate - a merger with the Liberals.

On the one hand you have those who question whether there is any merit in allying the NDP with a party which has been rejected by the electorate. We'll call this the "hell no" side.

On the other hand, you have those who say we have an electorate which continues to be more progressive. They argue that until we either eliminate splits or change the electoral system (not going to happen) the Conservatives will form the government. We'll call them the "let's think about it" side.

The former think that they can wait the Liberals out - that the end of the public subsidy and the two year wait for a new Liberal leader will further marginalize the Liberals and make them seem less and less like a viable option. The thinking is that there is no need to merge because in time the progressive space will be occupied only by the NDP as the Liberals fall away.

The latter feel that the NDP cannot simply hope to attract the progressive vote by default. The view is that in the same way the right needed to come together, the left will need to do the same. For them, this is the perfect time for the NDP to consider such discussions - they are in a position of strength. The terms of a merger can be more easily dictated when you are in the ascendancy. Despite their troubles, the Liberals can offer some street credibility as a party which has successfully tackled issues such as the deficit and offered credible economic management.

***

For me, the discussion on the word socialism and the debate on a merger with the Liberals are the same issue. They are both about how the NDP can move from being the opposition to being the government. It is about what steps they need to take to move from away being seen as a modern day CCF, and towards being seen as Canada's equivalent of New Labour; as a government in waiting.

Getting to an answer will not be easy for the NDP. The party will go through their own "quiet riot" as they struggle with striking the right balance between the principles of their past and their aspirations for the future.

Are they up for the challenge?

Breaking off the engagement?

The results of #elxn41 and the relative political stability that will result for at least the next four years have started me thinking about what this means for our political engagement. Are we in danger of taking a step backwards; of slipping into old habits?

During the campaign I posted this piece describing what I called "The Curious Case of Canadian Complacency":

http://politicswatcher.blogspot.com/2011/04/curious-case-of-canadian-complacency.html.

After discussing what I saw as some of the root causes of our complacency, I concluded with the following:

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.

Fast forward to today and we are in a post-elxn world with a government that not only has a strong majority in both the House and Senate, but which is also well-positioned for political dominance for a decade. My worry is that this stability will lull Canadians back into their political comfort zone - complacency.

More to point, we risk falling further back into this mode at the very time the opposite is required.

Any reader of this blog will be familiar with my concerns about the degree to which we are not engaged on the issues facing Canada - both the challenges and the opportunities. Even when we are engaged, it is often on the sensational (political scandal) or it is fleeting (the long-form census, the contempt issue).

The question I am asking is whether the "strong, stable majority" provided to Mr. Harper and the Conservatives was, in part, Canadians' way of saying "enough already - just get on with it." Put another way, did we vote for stability at the expense of engagement?

While I am concerned we may have voted this way, I nevertheless believe that the decisions that the government is going to be forced to make - on the economy, health care, the environment, security, innovation and education are of the type that Canadians may find difficult to ignore. But to truly get us engaged, we may need more:

1. We need credible policy alternatives. There are any number of ways we can address the challenges and opportunities before us. Canadians need to be better exposed to the credible options available to their government, and not just the preferred. Engagement requires choice.

2. We need credible government alternatives. The ineffectiveness of the Liberals and concerns about the NDP have made the Conservatives a default for many Canadians. In addition to needing to be exposed to different policy options, we need to have more confidence that there is more than one party which can govern the country. This does not exist today. Again, engagement requires choice.

3. We need information and transparency - they are vital to debate and dialogue. As noted in my recent post on the deficit and cost-cutting, the government wants to cut spending and has set a target, but has not been clear about on what basis cuts will be considered. Not knowing the criteria makes it difficult to become engaged on the objective. This is just one example of a lack of transparency in our government. We have an information-deficit in government that is just as in need of addressing as our fiscal deficit.

***

Will the combined effect of political stability and a naturally complacent citizenry result in a further dis-engagement from our politics? I hope not.

Interestingly, I read today that Iceland is crowd-sourcing its constitution via social media - throwing it open to citizens for their views on how a country ravaged by the financial crisis wants to be governed in the future. While one might expect a lot of extreme views, the sense thus far has been that some very reasoned and informed ideas have been offered up. That's engagement.

Will our governments ever be so bold? Will we ever be ready to jump at the chance?

What do you think?

Appoint to Prove

The power of the Prime Minister to appoint is immense. Whether it is to the Senate, commissions, diplomatic posts, senior positions in the bureaucracy, or to the judiciary, the Prime Minister has the power to use his or her appointees to shape public policy.

Of course, appointments are also used extensively to reward the faithful - party officials, defeated candidates, long-time kindred spirits. This makes the power a double-edged sword, as such use of it can over time move public opinion and undermine support from the user. One could argue that such use of this power has made a strong contribution to the apathy and cynicism Canadians have for their political system.

So what of Stephen Harper? While he has been able to wield this power since 2006, he is now able to do so as a Prime Minister with a strong majority. He also has, following recent decisions to retire, the opportunity to appoint two Supreme Court justices - appointments which will have a profound impact on the course of public policy in Canada.

All to say, how Stephen Harper exercises this power over the next 4-5 years will be important. And make no mistake, there will be pressure on him.

On one side, you have the infamous base. The social conservative element of the Conservative Party will be looking at the appointments the Prime Minister makes (particularly those to the judiciary) for signs that decades of perceived liberal values dominating Canadian public policy are coming to an end.

On the other side is the centrist voter in Canada. While there has been a lot of debate recently about whether Canada is moving right, the fact remains that we continue to be a body politic that is most comfortable in the centre. This group will be watching to see whether the Prime Minister uses his appointments to lurch Canada to the right, to attack his opponents and reward his faithful - things they do not want to see.

All of this suggests that we can expect a balancing act of sorts for Mr. Harper. The base will be rewarded and mollified through some appointments, though I believe that these will be in areas which have less impact on the national scene. They may play locally or are targeted, but overall will not help frame the national narrative on the Prime Minister.

However, my sense is that for those appointments which clearly matter to the majority of Canadians - such as to the Supreme Court - the Prime Minister will be reasonably balanced. Process will be emphasized and effort will be made to not be overtly partisan or ideological.

Why? I may be thinking wishfully but I am hoping that Mr. Harper realizes he has a point to prove - that he is prepared to govern for all Canadians.

This was his pledge on election night and it is the one which I will ultimately be watching most closely.