Stephen Harper's political career has had several strange intersections with our national police force. In the middle of the last election campaign, he and his Party were drifting towards a second defeat at the hands of Paul Martin's Liberals until, magically and as if from heaven, the RCMP announced an investigation into the income trust review, naming Finance Minister Ralph Goodale. It was an unprecedented act, and as many columnists have pointed out, we still don't know why it happened. That investigation turned out much later to be bogus, at least as it pertained to Ralph Goodale and the Liberal government of the day. That did not stop Mr Harper and his parties from making allegations of criminal conduct. The Liberals dropped precipitously in the polls and Mr Harper went on to win. It was the campaign's turning point.
Then we had the RCMP raid of the Conservative Party offices earlier this year. The Conservatives are accused of overspending their legal limit by as much as $1.2 million. The details on that one require a separate blog, and hopefully time, and this campaign, will allow for the same.
They're back!! Reacting to the Globe's report on the RCMP investigation into the Bernier-Couillard affair, this week, Mr Harper said:
“I want to make it absolutely clear, because I do not want this story distorted: There is no suggestion that the RCMP is investigating Minister Bernier. Period. Quite frankly, any question that tries to suggest otherwise is misleading and inaccurate,” Mr. Harper said.
...
“Let's be very clear: Mr. Bernier and nobody in this government is under investigation by the RCMP. The RCMP, we understand from stories, may be investigating some private individuals, but frankly I do not know if that's true and I do not know the details...”
Wow! Mr. Harper doesn't know about the investigation, but somehow knows for certain that no one in his government is involved. That may or may not be true, but it is certainly not an argument he allowed when Ralph Goodale's reputation was impugned. He and his party alleged criminal conduct because of the simple presence of an RCMP investigation. You can see why he wouldn't want "this story distorted".
Further, while he knows nothing about the investigation, he does seem to know that "some private individuals" may be involved, or so he says. Today's Globe says :
Sources said the RCMP investigation is focused on two lines of questioning: allegations that businesswoman Julie Couillard lobbied Conservative officials on a federal real estate deal, and how secret documents that belonged to Conservative MP Maxime Bernier when he was foreign affairs minister came to be left at Ms. Couillard's home.
So they are investigating whether Couillard lobbied Conservative officials on a federal government real estate deal, and how secret documents belonging to Bernier came to be left at Couillard's home, but Mr. Harper knows for sure that no one in the Conservative government is being investigated. How does he know that? Was he briefed by the RCMP on the investigation? Did he or his ministers discuss the investigation with the RCMP? If so, Canadians deserve to know, because that could be political interference in a police investigation, and that is serious stuff. If not, is he making this all up?
If he is, we should probably know that, too.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Why aren't the numbers moving? Because polls are for dogs?
It's nearing midpoint in the federal election and our media is awash in polls. It is hard to keep up. Ever since modern polling was invented and popularized by Lou Harris in the United States and Martin Goldfarb here in Canada, polling information has been the mother's milk of the political class. Political parties polled during elections and other key times. That data was always held very tightly by those commissioning the poll: in almost every case a handful of people. The rest of us had to wait and rely on the occasional poll paid for and published by the media.
As modern campaigning techniques developed, parties began the practise of tracking the evolution of public opinion nightly, by the method of a rolling poll. The statistical accuracy of polls depends upon a random sample. Let's take the example of a national poll of about 12oo people. The poll is usually done over three or four nights- with segments of three or four hundred respondents contacted per night. A rolling poll simply keeps those segments going nightly, usually for the entire campaign. In this way, the parties could closely track the evolution of public opinion nightly. They could see, almost in real time, how the public reacts to campaign developments.
Now, this information is available to almost everyone. Harris Decima, Nanos and Ekos, for example, all publish rolling polls daily. So now we are all campaign managers and strategists. Eat it up. Enjoy!
The downside is that the coverage of the campaigns is now driven on a daily basis by this phenomenon. They suck all the oxygen out of campaign coverage, leaving important things, such as what the politicians are actually proposing to do, gasping for air. It used to be that polls would be published, at most, every week or two. Now there are many released every day, and they dominate the daily news cycle. So issues, and even values , play second fiddle. This campaign, at least so far, is the worst example of this to date.
Former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker once proclaimed "Polls.... are for dogs!" And while public opinion research is valuable, interesting and can even promote democratic values in our system, this complete fixation on the numbers or the horse race is a perversion of our political culture. There is little room for anything else.
In time, there will probably be a reaction to all this and issues and values will re-emerge as the most important factors in an election campaign. The Internet has opened up participation in the "conversation" that election campaigns are supposed to be, and that is some reason for hope.
Finally, should we be surprised that Harper and the Conservatives essentially hold the same lead in public opinion that they have held since the first week of the campaign? Not really. this campaign really isn't about anything, yet. Stephen Harper has helped make sure of that. There have been some gaffes. For the most part these have been various "neo-con eruptions'' from Mr Harper's Conservative campaign. Most Canadians have not engaged, and this is not unusual. At this point in the 2004 election, Paul Martin and the Liberals were behind and they came back and won. At this point in the 2006 election campaign, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives were behind and they came back and won. The public tuned in and made their decision late in the game in those instances.
Stephen Harper called this election , in violation of the law his government passed, because he gambled that no one would care too much. He saw dark economic clouds coming and did not want to wear responsibility for them. He had spent the surplus away that he inherited from Paul Martin and Jean Chretien, bringing us back into deficit country. He did not want a light shone on that while people struggled over the next year. He also hoped that a low key campaign, sweaters and all, running coincident with the US elections, combined with the declining public interest, would all result in Canadians sleepwalking to the polls. His campaign slogan, splashed at the end of every one of those smarmy ads, is "We're better off with Harper". He's trying to tell you there is no big deal here. You are supposed to yawn, maybe even fall back to sleep. He's hoping you'll conclude there is nothing so wrong with him or his government that will make you want to get up and change it.
The risk is that he may turn out to be right.
As modern campaigning techniques developed, parties began the practise of tracking the evolution of public opinion nightly, by the method of a rolling poll. The statistical accuracy of polls depends upon a random sample. Let's take the example of a national poll of about 12oo people. The poll is usually done over three or four nights- with segments of three or four hundred respondents contacted per night. A rolling poll simply keeps those segments going nightly, usually for the entire campaign. In this way, the parties could closely track the evolution of public opinion nightly. They could see, almost in real time, how the public reacts to campaign developments.
Now, this information is available to almost everyone. Harris Decima, Nanos and Ekos, for example, all publish rolling polls daily. So now we are all campaign managers and strategists. Eat it up. Enjoy!
The downside is that the coverage of the campaigns is now driven on a daily basis by this phenomenon. They suck all the oxygen out of campaign coverage, leaving important things, such as what the politicians are actually proposing to do, gasping for air. It used to be that polls would be published, at most, every week or two. Now there are many released every day, and they dominate the daily news cycle. So issues, and even values , play second fiddle. This campaign, at least so far, is the worst example of this to date.
Former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker once proclaimed "Polls.... are for dogs!" And while public opinion research is valuable, interesting and can even promote democratic values in our system, this complete fixation on the numbers or the horse race is a perversion of our political culture. There is little room for anything else.
In time, there will probably be a reaction to all this and issues and values will re-emerge as the most important factors in an election campaign. The Internet has opened up participation in the "conversation" that election campaigns are supposed to be, and that is some reason for hope.
Finally, should we be surprised that Harper and the Conservatives essentially hold the same lead in public opinion that they have held since the first week of the campaign? Not really. this campaign really isn't about anything, yet. Stephen Harper has helped make sure of that. There have been some gaffes. For the most part these have been various "neo-con eruptions'' from Mr Harper's Conservative campaign. Most Canadians have not engaged, and this is not unusual. At this point in the 2004 election, Paul Martin and the Liberals were behind and they came back and won. At this point in the 2006 election campaign, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives were behind and they came back and won. The public tuned in and made their decision late in the game in those instances.
Stephen Harper called this election , in violation of the law his government passed, because he gambled that no one would care too much. He saw dark economic clouds coming and did not want to wear responsibility for them. He had spent the surplus away that he inherited from Paul Martin and Jean Chretien, bringing us back into deficit country. He did not want a light shone on that while people struggled over the next year. He also hoped that a low key campaign, sweaters and all, running coincident with the US elections, combined with the declining public interest, would all result in Canadians sleepwalking to the polls. His campaign slogan, splashed at the end of every one of those smarmy ads, is "We're better off with Harper". He's trying to tell you there is no big deal here. You are supposed to yawn, maybe even fall back to sleep. He's hoping you'll conclude there is nothing so wrong with him or his government that will make you want to get up and change it.
The risk is that he may turn out to be right.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Cherniak Again on Layton and Harper.
And in the end, Layton and Stephen Taylor on Harper and Layton. I guess Liberals don't need to make the case anymore that Layton and Harper collude. Jack does that all by himself.
Next.
Next.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Conservatives Admit Harper and Layton Colluded to Omit Greens from Debate
As Cherniak on Politics blogs tonight, and as Keith Boag's story on the CBC National news reveals, representatives of the NDP and the Conservatives had a deal. They agreed some time ago that they would both block the inclusion of the Green Party in the debates. And they stuck with the deal until Jack Layton "turned turtle".
Which is interesting. First, when the news first broke that May would not be allowed in to the debates, I happened to be on the air on the Ottawa radio station, CFRA, doing a weekly panel on Afternoon Edition with host Rob Snow. When I suggested that the Conservatives and NDP had colluded to keep the Green Party out, my co-panelist and the NDP's official campaign spokesperson, Brad Lavigne, denied it vehemently. As it turns out, that was exactly what happened.
This brings us to the second point. In past elections, I had the privilege of talking to many thousands of people in Ottawa Centre, many of them (too many!) who voted for the NDP. In the six month campaign that Ed Broadbent and I ran together in, I knocked on well over 60,000 doors before our campaign stopped counting. I write this to say that, during that wonderful experience, I gained some appreciation for what these good people looked to the NDP to do for them. Working with Stephen Harper was not high on their priority list. They did not expect or want Jack Layton to work with Stephen Harper to defeat a national child care program. They did not expect their representatives to vote to end the Kelowna Accord, and to spend all their energy defeating a Liberal government that had just secured an international agreement to further the Kyoto objectives and deal with climate change. They did not want the party they voted for to work with Stephen Harper to force an election which achieved Layton's objective: a Stephen Harper minority government.
No, that is not what NDP supporters elect their Members of Parliament to do. They don't see politics the way Jack Layton does: the Liberals are the ultimate enemy and it doesn't matter what tactic you use, what progressive policy you bring down as long as you defeat the enemy.
So the challenge for Layton is that this new deal with Harper just underlines to his potential supporters the sometimes symbiotic relationship between these two unlikely partners. They say the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Jack's problem is his potential voters don't share his definition of who the ultimate enemy is. For them, on most days, it is not the Liberals. It is not the Green Party. It's the guy who stands most against what they believe: Stephen Harper.
Which is interesting. First, when the news first broke that May would not be allowed in to the debates, I happened to be on the air on the Ottawa radio station, CFRA, doing a weekly panel on Afternoon Edition with host Rob Snow. When I suggested that the Conservatives and NDP had colluded to keep the Green Party out, my co-panelist and the NDP's official campaign spokesperson, Brad Lavigne, denied it vehemently. As it turns out, that was exactly what happened.
This brings us to the second point. In past elections, I had the privilege of talking to many thousands of people in Ottawa Centre, many of them (too many!) who voted for the NDP. In the six month campaign that Ed Broadbent and I ran together in, I knocked on well over 60,000 doors before our campaign stopped counting. I write this to say that, during that wonderful experience, I gained some appreciation for what these good people looked to the NDP to do for them. Working with Stephen Harper was not high on their priority list. They did not expect or want Jack Layton to work with Stephen Harper to defeat a national child care program. They did not expect their representatives to vote to end the Kelowna Accord, and to spend all their energy defeating a Liberal government that had just secured an international agreement to further the Kyoto objectives and deal with climate change. They did not want the party they voted for to work with Stephen Harper to force an election which achieved Layton's objective: a Stephen Harper minority government.
No, that is not what NDP supporters elect their Members of Parliament to do. They don't see politics the way Jack Layton does: the Liberals are the ultimate enemy and it doesn't matter what tactic you use, what progressive policy you bring down as long as you defeat the enemy.
So the challenge for Layton is that this new deal with Harper just underlines to his potential supporters the sometimes symbiotic relationship between these two unlikely partners. They say the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Jack's problem is his potential voters don't share his definition of who the ultimate enemy is. For them, on most days, it is not the Liberals. It is not the Green Party. It's the guy who stands most against what they believe: Stephen Harper.
Layton, Harper Cave
So Elizabeth May and puffin style attacks are the big story of week one. Who knew? Once Jack Layton's entire base threatened to leave him over the issue, it was only a matter of time before he caved. Then Stephen Harper turtled too.
Layton was taking it on the chin because, by denying May a place in the debates, he was practising what some in his party call the "old politics". He was even more vulnerable because his campaign practically ignores the issue of climate change, preferring to cynically promise cheap gas. He doesn't have the courage to propose a big idea. The left, particularly those involved in environmental issues are disappointed. Layton is losing their support. He just didn't want to lose anymore of that support so he wanted to keep May out. Competition is bad for business, especially when the business is your business. In the end, his plan failed.
This obsession with keeping the Greens out is not new. I was a candidate in the last two federal elections in Ottawa Centre. Nothing would drive my opponents (Ed Broadbent and Paul Dewar respectively) more insane than any prominence given to the Green Party`s very solid candidate, David Chernushenko. The NDP hierarchy loathe the Greens much more than they oppose the Conservatives. It's just the way it is.
But Jack's not the only one who is at risk with May in the debates. Stephane Dion's stance on this issue is all the more principled when you take into account the risk he now faces. Elizabeth May may well be successful in showing just how bad Stephen Harper is on the environment, climate change and other progressive issues. But, if she is, who will she pull support away from? It stands to reason that she will take votes away from someone who is closer to her agenda, someone whose platform actually commits to doing something about climate change, namely the Liberal Party and Stephane Dion.
That being said, we all look forward to watching the risk averse Harper take it on a chin or two.
Layton was taking it on the chin because, by denying May a place in the debates, he was practising what some in his party call the "old politics". He was even more vulnerable because his campaign practically ignores the issue of climate change, preferring to cynically promise cheap gas. He doesn't have the courage to propose a big idea. The left, particularly those involved in environmental issues are disappointed. Layton is losing their support. He just didn't want to lose anymore of that support so he wanted to keep May out. Competition is bad for business, especially when the business is your business. In the end, his plan failed.
This obsession with keeping the Greens out is not new. I was a candidate in the last two federal elections in Ottawa Centre. Nothing would drive my opponents (Ed Broadbent and Paul Dewar respectively) more insane than any prominence given to the Green Party`s very solid candidate, David Chernushenko. The NDP hierarchy loathe the Greens much more than they oppose the Conservatives. It's just the way it is.
But Jack's not the only one who is at risk with May in the debates. Stephane Dion's stance on this issue is all the more principled when you take into account the risk he now faces. Elizabeth May may well be successful in showing just how bad Stephen Harper is on the environment, climate change and other progressive issues. But, if she is, who will she pull support away from? It stands to reason that she will take votes away from someone who is closer to her agenda, someone whose platform actually commits to doing something about climate change, namely the Liberal Party and Stephane Dion.
That being said, we all look forward to watching the risk averse Harper take it on a chin or two.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Andrew Coyne has it right!
Yep, that's right, I said it. And it feels just fine. Andrew has had some very good blogs and columns already during this campaign. One of them mapped the hypocrisy of Stephen Harper's current claim to be a "centrist". This is a guy who left the Progressive Conservative Party precisely because he thought it was too "centrist". Now, at election time he claims to be one.
But I digress. Coyne's "Democracy Takes A Beating" nails it. Elizabeth May should be in the debates. It is indefensible that she is not. By definition, her participation in the debates is not in the interest of any of the other leaders. She is their competitor. But in what upside down world is that the test? Apparently, Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton threatened the networks that they would not participate in the debates if Ms. May participated. Are we back in high school here? Is that the way we should decide who is in the debate and who is not?
This whole issue underlines one of the dirty little secrets of Canadian politics. Most Canadians would be stunned to learn is that it isn't some impartial body, such as the Commissioner of Elections, that supervises the leader's election debates. No, it is a consortium of broadcasters. A cozy little club, Coyne called it. The decision on who is in the debate, who is out, when they take place, the format of the debates- the whole shooting match- is a programming decision by the networks, as if this was Canadian Idol. If the broadcasters decided not to have debates, there wouldn't be any. If they decided that debating would not be allowed during the Leader's debates, then there would be none of that. It is high time to change that.
And, while I am not a supporter of the Green Party, I am going here, to add my voice to those who think democracy in this country deserves a boost, not a hit.
But I digress. Coyne's "Democracy Takes A Beating" nails it. Elizabeth May should be in the debates. It is indefensible that she is not. By definition, her participation in the debates is not in the interest of any of the other leaders. She is their competitor. But in what upside down world is that the test? Apparently, Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton threatened the networks that they would not participate in the debates if Ms. May participated. Are we back in high school here? Is that the way we should decide who is in the debate and who is not?
This whole issue underlines one of the dirty little secrets of Canadian politics. Most Canadians would be stunned to learn is that it isn't some impartial body, such as the Commissioner of Elections, that supervises the leader's election debates. No, it is a consortium of broadcasters. A cozy little club, Coyne called it. The decision on who is in the debate, who is out, when they take place, the format of the debates- the whole shooting match- is a programming decision by the networks, as if this was Canadian Idol. If the broadcasters decided not to have debates, there wouldn't be any. If they decided that debating would not be allowed during the Leader's debates, then there would be none of that. It is high time to change that.
And, while I am not a supporter of the Green Party, I am going here, to add my voice to those who think democracy in this country deserves a boost, not a hit.
Stephen Harper: Leadership Mitt Romney style
Stephen Harper hasn't given Canadians much of a campaign yet. After two and a half years of a government that accomplished precious little other than shaving a point or two off the GST, Stephen Harper breaks his law and his promise and calls an election. So you would think he'd have something big to say, some big idea. So far, his campaign is about juvenile ads and tricks, and the notion that Stephane Dion's big idea of change presents too much of a risk.
It started with my old friend Lawrence Cannon joining Jason Kenney on the first 6 am Conservative attack press conference. Cannon and Kenney repeated the ridiculous notion that the Liberals would increase the GST and repeal the child care tax deduction, brought in by the Conservative when they ended Paul Martin and Ken Dryden's national child care program running in ten provinces. Then the silly ads and "puffin gate", no doubt both drawn up by some high testosterone teenager in the Conservative war room.
These guys are doing what their Republican cousins have perfected and what their antecedents, the Mike Harris Conservatives, previously imported to Canada. Just keep on repeating the idea, no matter how untrue or ridiculous. Say it loudly, and without nuance. And eventually it will take root somewhere. Whatever you do, don't allow discussion, debate, or any nuance. Especially from your own team.
The Republican Convention displayed this dark art at is finest/worst. Mitt Romney declared
"We need change all right - change from a liberal Washington to a conservativeAnd we thought the conservatives had been in charge in Washington these last eight years.....
Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in
Washington - throw out the big government liberals and elect John McCain!"
So far, at least from the Conservative side, this campaign is more about these silly fabrications and juvenile stunts than anything else. That, and keeping the Green Party out of the Leader's debates. Where is Harper's rationale for calling an early election? What does he plan to do to build Canada's economy as the US heads into recession? How do we transition to a more modern, greener economy ? How will he help families make that change? By dumping on Stephane Dion and colluding with Jack Layton to ensure that Elizabeth May and her environmental agenda have no voice, that's how.
Some campaign! Some leader!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
