Gettin' Iggy Wit It

During the dark days of the federal conservative movement, many conservatives grumbled endlessly about Jean Chretien. So when the prospect of replacing him with Paul Martin came along, many of my peers were ecstatic - or at the very least, comforted. "I hate to say it" lamented one "but Paul Martin as PM...I might actually be okay with that".

You remember those days. Everyone from the Globe’s editorial board on down was predicting a Liberal sweep of the nation, 220 seats or more - the Alliance lucky to hold onto their Alberta base, the PCs lucky to survive. Paul Martin, Liberal juggernaut.

So you will forgive me if I fail to bow down before the party’s latest messiah, Michael Ignatieff. It goes without saying he will be a more formidable foe than either of this two immediate predecessors. But then, it would be hard to do much worse, wouldn’t it?

I will say this about Mr.Ignatieff: he is an impressive intellect. I don’t care for some of his views, but I don’t doubt he’s arrived at them following thorough consideration. The issue is whether the pressures of politics will require him to jettison some of the very thoughtful positions he has taken in the past, because if so, then what? What’s the point of having a really smart guy in charge if he’s forced to cave in and mouth the same old boilerplate as the last guy?

I also think that much of the Iggy cheerleading set seems oblivious to his shortcomings, particularly from a purely retail perspective. First of all, the man lived outside of Canada since 1978. 1978! He’s been back in the country for all of three years. I can appreciate that he might truly be a ‘global citizen’ - or an Anglo-American, anyway - as a result, and it would be absurdly closed-minded to suggest that having lived abroad would disqualify someone from becoming Prime Minister. But good grief, 30 years is most of his adult life, and virtually all of his professional career. I have no doubt Mr.Ignatieff loves Canada, but can he really claim to understand it to the extent that a lifelong resident can? It’s one thing to study a country from afar. It’s another to live here day in and day out with your fellow citizens.

Or how about this: Stephen Harper takes his kids to the cineplex. Has Michael Ignatieff sullied himself with the plebian theatre anytime recently? I know, I know, who cares, right? We shouldn’t be picking our leaders based on whether or not they’re suburban dads with sweater vests. Perhaps not. But I’ve dealt with enough voters over the last three elections to know that more often than not, whether people can see any of themselves in the individuals seeking to represent them makes a difference. Do they have kids? Do they worry about the things I worry about? Do they understand my experiences? Do they live a life like mine? Some might argue these things should matter as little as the colour of a candidate's shair. And if we were all living in a textbook, maybe they wouldn’t . But they do.

So Michael Ignatieff has a fine line to walk. He needs to leverage his intelligence without it becoming an obstacle to lesser mortals relating to him. He needs to pull together a coalition of voters that is more nebulous and fickle than the Tories, without bleeding on the left or right. True, he has the benefit of seeing the mistakes of of those who came before him, but he also has the added pressure of being the Liberals’ last hope - their last chance to fix their dilapidated organization, anemic fundraising and policy vaccumn. He’s their last kick at the can to return them to glory, before they go out of business.

Some Liberals have asserted that the Tories are scared of Ignatieff. I don’t know if fear is the right word - anyone would have been a tougher fight after the hapless Mr.Dion. But “curious” might be more accurate. We’re just not quite sure which Ignatieff will show up over the coming weeks: will it be the polarizing figure who led the Liberal leadership race all the way to Montreal in 2006, but with little room to grow? Will it be the head-down, low-profile, no-commenter of the last few weeks? Will it be the everythings-on-the-table guy of yesterday’s press conference? We just don’t know yet.

Down The Rabbit Hole

Stephen Harper started this, and by gawd the opposition seems hell bent on finishing it.

When the now-infamous attempt by the Prime Minister to smuggle in the death of public subsidies to political parties was met with hysteria from the opposition, it quickly became clear that the chessmaster had, for once, miscalculated. And that was that. The opposition had their excuse: thank you sir, we'll be taking over government now...

That's essentially the pretext. The notion that the opposition's newfound unity has anything remotely to do with a common vision, or deep concern for the looming economic crisis is absurd, given that the Tories have backed off on all the contentious issues, and committed to the very stimulus that the opposition is demanding - at a budget to be delivered on January 27.

Why is that unacceptable? Apparently because that's far too long to wait. To coordinate a massive fiscal stimulus the country has ever seen. In concert with other major countries, including the eminently acceptable timetable of the recently-beatified Barack Obama. That the opposition would now deliver at approximately the same time anyway.

Oh, but the bullying. We just can't trust that Harper anymore. As if last Wednesday you would have found a single soul amongst the opposition benches that would have sung his praises and called him trustworthy.

So why don't we just call this what it is: it's payback. It's venting. It's a mental masturbation session for all those partisans who can't stand Stephen Harper and are simply ecstatic that they've finally found a way to take him out, once and for all. It's not a coup d'etat, to be sure. But I can't think of a more disturbing way to spin away the results of an election. It's as if they're saying: we don't care what the voters said. Our distaste for Stephen Harper trumps their will.

But Harper only got a minority, you say. The public didn't give him a mandate to bulldoze. No, they didn't. Which is why he's already been cut down to size by being forced to backpedal. But the public did give him a mandate nonetheless: and soundly rejected the other alternatives. Given that the notion of a coalition between the Liberals and NDP (nevermind all three opposition parties) was explicitly and repeatedly rejected by both Stephane Dion and Jack Layton just six weeks ago, how can they possibly argue the public has somehow subconsciously consented to such a pact?

And look - there's Elizabeth May angling for a Senate seat. I suppose if being appointed is the only way you can get into Parliament, she'll have to take it. Just another in the long line of her attempts to circumvent the system because she doesn't like the way it works. Because that's democracy: if you don't like the rules of the game, just ignore the rules!

The opposition speaks as if putting the boots to Stephen Harper is the overwhelming issue of importance facing the nation, when in fact it is only the overarching obsession of their own political fantasies. They could not beat the man in an election, so they are trying to take him out by striking a deal of no substance, against their own promises, using the guise of economic crisis to seize power. As the Globe and Mail put so accurately today, Stephen Harper may deserve a dressing down for his conduct last week. Indeed, the opposition could have even demanded his resignation, allowing the government to select a new PM. But surely it does not mean Canada deserves a frankenparty coalition led by the weakest and most soundly rejected leader the Liberal Party has ever had, inked with a socialist party committed to making a bad economic situation worse, held hostage by a party whose sole raison d'etre is the breakup of the country.

No, Mr.Harper had it right today in the House when he dared Mr.Dion to take his proposal of a coalition to the voters. Neither he, nor Jack Layton, nor Gilles Duceppe, nor any of their snivelling cheerleaders in the media or blogosphere would have the nads to do any such thing, because they know it would be roundly rejected by the public. So instead they're preparing to use constitutional niceties to impose a government that not a single voter in this country consented to. Because, trust them, it's for the good of the country.

Dear Prime Minister

...please request that her Excellency prorogue Parliament to January 26. Have Jim Flaherty deliver a federal budget the next day. Make them bring down your government over something concrete, for all Canadians to see.

Just One Question

...now that the Tories have moved the budget up to January 27, what's the rush of the opposition to bring them down on December 8?

If we set aside the incredible fantasy that this ridiculous situation arose out of the lack of fiscal stimulus in the fiscal update - and I say fantasy because it's obviously entirely about the public subsidies to political parties, on both sides, and because a fiscal update isn't a budget - the presumable reason that the opposition absolutely, positively has to take out Harper is because the government's plans are "inadequate".

Except how would they know yet? Shouldn't they wait to actually see the budget they're pre-emptively denouncing before declaring it a flop? If they've got such a steady coalition ready to roll, can't they just execute it after January 27 anyway?

The answer is obvious. It's because the opposition sees a chance for payback to Stephen Harper. They can't raise more money than him, and they cannot beat him fair and square in an election. But they now see an opportunity to take him out and indulge in their own partisan wet dream - ironic given their constant assertion that he's the "most partisan Prime Minister in history". I can't help but wonder what they consider their own fanatical obsession with retribution against the man. If Stephen Harper is being unnervingly partisan by trying to cripple the opposition under the guise of fiscal austerity, what does that make an opposition that is willing to bring down a government ten seats shy of a majority, six weeks after winning a mandate?

More to the point, have serious Liberals and New Democrats thought this thing through? I know everyone wants Harper out. I also know everyone agrees about the economic panacea of "fiscal stimulus". But beyond that, good grief. What would this coalition government's environment policy be? Do we really suppose that even half of the Liberal Party or its supporters are going be okay with New Democrats holding economic portfolios? What about New Democrats - are they fine with getting into bed with a party that has used them as a punching bag for most of the last 40 years? For two and a half years? And Stephane Dion as Prime Minister? This is all in good fun if the only objective is to stick it to Harper. But there's also the issue of running the country with the same people you're going to be attacking viciously come the next election.

One of the Liberal Party's biggest weaknesses since its defeat in 2006 has been its inability to look past its own nose into the longer term, hysterically focusing on today at the expense of tomorrow. Dare I say their current power play shows they haven't learned a thing?

United In Self-Preservation

Facing the Tory government’s proposal to eliminate the public money that keeps them afloat, the fractured opposition has finally found a unifying purpose around which to rally.

This is, of course, “unprecedented”. Not since at least August 2008 have the Liberals, Bloc and NDP been so unanimous in their proclamations of Stephen Harper’s treachery, bad faith and, of course, unconscionable attacks on the very pillars of democracy we hold dear, and all the accompanying calamities that would follow. Or the 37 day general election thereafter, which was a essentially a free-for-all gang-up on the Tories, and resulted in a 19-seat gain for the incumbent government.

No, the opposition has always been rather united about many things. In this case, it’s hard to even discern the driving force: is it merely their deep commitment to saving their own skins? The staggering hypocrisy of blasting the Tories for supposedly being radical right-wing skinflints over the last three years, only to accuse them of having spent far too much now? The fantasy that with more (less?) spending under Harper’s watch that Canada could have somehow totally averted the worldwide economic meltdown affecting every advanced economy in the world? The inherent contradiction in demanding massive fiscal stimulus while simultaneously howling about a deficit? Accusing the Cabinet of being bloated, but refusing to have a penny nipped from their own partisan budgets?

But something is different this time. Indeed, if the latest reports are to be believed, the Liberals and NDP are prepared to govern in a formal coalition - possibly led by Michael Ignatieff(!) - with the ever-so-reliable support of the Bloc, in order to avoid having their party welfare cheques taken away. Why now, of all times? Largely because they don’t have any other choice. Whereas the Liberals were content to roll over, again and again, on countless issues of supposed national importance during the last Tory minority, this time it’s about the survival of the Liberal Party, rather than the mere good of Canada. They can’t sit it out, or they’ll be crippled, possibly beyond repair. So while they have always been fully prepared to sell Canadians down the river to save their own necks, they nonetheless still have the good sense not slit their own throats. The same goes for the Bloc, who have the distinct luxury of opposing everything, all the time - with a clear 80% of their funding coming from public coffers (which is an added twist the NDP and Liberals seem to be overlooking: by voting against measures to cut public funding they will single handedly be keeping the Bloc afloat).

As for the NDP, principled bunch that they are, having been good Keynesians and mortgaged themselves to the hilt in order to pay for the recent campaign, they could survive the loss of the public subsidy in the long run, which alone might give them pause for thought. But because they are deeply in the red today, they can’t afford to fight another campaign - yet. So they’re content to let the government fall, so long as they can avoid an election - and hence the willingness to sit formally in a Liberal coalition with Michael Ignatieff - Michael Ignatieff as PM. What’s next - Bob Rae and Jack Layton as seat-mates? Poor Tommy Douglas would be on spin cycle in his grave.

But isn’t this dirty pool by the Tories? It would be, if they weren’t going to take a major hit too, to the tune of $10 million a year. The fact that they can raise money - voluntarily, as it were - from the public at large is totally irrelevant, because every party is free to do the same, and always has been. That they are a terrible at doing so is a testament to either laziness, incompetence, or a lack of inspiring policies.

Or perhaps Harper has bitten off more than he can chew this time? Perhaps he’s misjudged the opposition’s willingness to stare him down? That’s only if you assume he hasn’t entertained the possibility they actually will. Everyone thinks Harper wants to stay in power at all costs, but given the current situation, would he? The cupboard’s bare. The storm clouds are on the horizon. There’s not a lot of room to manoeuver. So why not let Stephane Dion, or Michael Ignatieff, or Bob Rae or Jack Layton - or the whole lot of them - wear it? Why not let them try to find the magic pill, and see how stark things will look once the initial euphoria of being back in power wears off. How long could a 114-seat Liberal-NDP coalition propped up by the Bloc survive? Three months? Six? So long as Harper himself can live to fight another day - I would certainly support his right to, but there are some elements in the party who might not be so forward-thinking - what’s the downside? It’s not as if there’s much “conservative” that can be done in the current political climate anyway. So why not sit it out?

I digress. Someone may blink by Monday. But come what may, I don’t believe for a second that Stephen Harper hasn’t already contemplated the outcome and found it to be bearable.

What Coyne Said

It's about time.

Congratulations to Barack Obama

Cliche or no, it really is historic. I loathe identity politics, but there's no denying race relations in America will (should?) be forever transformed by Barack Obama's election as president.

Mr.Obama earned this victory. I still believe he is a risk; I still don't care for most of his policies. But I will not engage in the same sort of hysteria and whining that went on amongst progressives following John Kerry's defeat in 2004- or pointing fingers and blaming the victor like Stephane Dion did a few weeks ago here. Mr.Obama won fair and square, and he deserves a chance to govern. John McCain, in his concession speech, made clear that he understands this. I hope his supporters do too.

The Republican Party now has an opportunity to do some serious soul-searching. For the sake of a competitive democratic polity in America, let's hope they actually undergo this process with some seriousness.

Congratulations again, Mr.Obama. Your win is a remarkable one. I am sure the time will come when I have words for you which are less kind. But tonight you've made history and this moment is deservedly yours.

Finally

...it's all over.

Many of you will know I was a campaign manager for the Conservatives in 2004 and 2006, and both times my candidate was defeated, so getting this win was extra special. And as nerve-racking as it is waiting 2 1/2 weeks after election day to know if your guy has won, I can tell you it's a hell of a lot better than losing. Additionally, never again will I have to stress the importance of getting out every last vote!

When you win by such a tiny amount, overcoming a 12,000 vote margin - numerically I am told it's the biggest upset in Canada - you realize just how much everything had to line up just right. The national campaign. Door to door canvassing. Debates. Literature. Phone calls. Getting out the vote. Having a cohesive, hardworking campaign team - and an outstanding candidate.

One piece of advise to anyone who is considering managing a campaign, however: don't try to juggle it with a full-time job. This was the first time I did that and it very nearly ran me into the ground - thankfully I have a supportive employer who was flexible enough to give me the time I needed to juggle both work and election.

ALSO: How did we do it? A lot of hard work, and a little bit of luck, as this piece explains

Silly Me

I thought the election would be over on election day. Not in Kitchener-Waterloo, though.

For those of you who have sent them, I really appreciate all the congratulations, but it goes without saying this was entirely a team effort. It also goes to show you the odds you can overcome when you have a great candidate, great team and work hard for every last vote.

And once the recount is over then perhaps I'll finally be able to relax!

Victory

OK Tories

...the campaigning is over, now it's all about the E-day ground game. So get out there and give 'em hell!!!

The Real Question

...is whether the last minute weekend shifts in support in 2004 and 2006 were an anti-Conservative phenomenon, or a familiarity phenomenon, i.e. people deciding to stick with the status quo. Of course Liberals are hoping it's the former, and Tories the latter. But as someone who's been serving as a campaign manager with a local campaign, I honestly couldn't tell you who has the momentum with less than 24 hours to go.

I know the consensus seems to be a Tory minority, but I personally think the degree of uncertainty could lead to any range of results from a bare Tory majority to a Liberal minority. The former could happen with appropriate vote splits from the NDP and Greens; the latter if the polls are on a trajectory towards convergence.

But no matter what happens tomorrow, I can safely say this was a most forgettable campaign, made all the more surreal by the fact it was broadsided by world events, which essentially forced every party to change strategy mid-campaign. As for policies, the only one that I think was communicated to any degree to the public was the Green Shift, which of course was grossly misrepresented by both its proponents and detractors.

And worst of all, it's almost a certainty we get to do this all over again in the next 18 months or so.

She's Behind You, 80%

Liz May throws 1/5 of her candidates under the bus.

I Can't Bear The Suspense

...who, pray tell, will the Toronto Star endorse!?!

Am I Missing Something?

Record-breaking job creation, the soundest banking system in the world, and Canada projected to lead the G7 in growth in 2009. And all clearly hallmarks of a government that can’t manage the economy, apparently.

And as for the panic in the streets? The Globe and The Economist both give tepid endorsements of the Tories – but endorsements nonetheless. Why? Because they both understand that whatever Stephen Harper’s shortcomings and errors, he is still the best option available. The alternative? The Globe sums him up best:

Mr. Dion is a decent man of great integrity and tremendous courage, most evident in his years as minister of intergovernmental affairs under Jean Chrétien. But a leader he is not.

If you want to meet the most inflexible head of a major political party, Mr. Dion takes it in a cakewalk. He's had a relatively strong week to be sure, but has never been much inclined to make the kind of mid-course corrections required in uncharted waters. He is a priest not a proselytizer, better at righteousness than salesmanship.

And By "Today" I Mean "Two And A Half Years Ago"

I realize everybody's postin' it, but just watch.

Panic v. Planning

Stephen Harper, December 20, 2007:

The prime minister is warning the public to expect a "challenging year" as a global economic slowdown looms and the federal government prepares to introduce climate change regulations on industry.

"The Canadian economy’s fundamentals are very strong. We’re very well positioned," Harper said in a year-end interview with CanWest News Service at 24 Sussex Drive.

"That said, we are an open-trading economy in a world where there is increasing economic uncertainty — in the United States economy in particular, but (also) some other parts of the globe. We are not immune to that."

John McCallum, Liberal finance critic, January 1, 2008:

McCallum accused Harper of sending a confusing message to consumers by combining talk of a tax cut with a warning the economy could be headed for trouble.

"This is clearly a triumph of gimmickry over good public policy to announce the GST cut in a store and tell us the cupboard is bare," said McCallum.

"I think they're trying to downplay expectations and then people will be positively surprised."

[…]

McCallum said the government is overstating the risks because many experts expect the Canadian economy to grow by up to 2.5 per cent this year, which would leave room for spending and tax initiatives.

There's many a Liberal smirking about the turn of this campaign. And in so doing, they have essentially proven Harper’s previously rhetorical accusation of “cheering for a recession” entirely true. The entire election having been mugged suddenly by world events, the Liberals insist that Looking Very Concerned leaves them better positioned to “address” the economic situation – as if there was anything that could be done about it, or at least, anything they’ve proposed. Something. Anything. But they have proposed nothing.

But I digress. The Liberals don’t care about whether they actually have answers or not, or even whether their answers are exactly the same as the Tories'. Rather, as they did with Kyoto, they are more concerned about looking like they care, sounding like they care, pretending they have a plan. Because that way, they will get credit, even if the emperor has no clothes. For the Liberal Party, the important thing is not to succeed, but to appear to have succeeded; not to achieve, but to give the impression of achievement; not to solve a problem, but to empathize with the need to solve it.

The Splintering

Tom Flanagan on how changes to party financing has led to increased vote splintering.

What She Said

Luisa D'Amato sums it up nicely in The Record.

The No-Plan Plan II

Everyone's nervous about the economy. “Do something!” shout the people.

Just one question: has anyone - anyone at all - come forward with any substantive proposal as to what the government should "do"? Anyone? Bueller?