We're pretty well at the mid-point of the 2011 General Election. Looking back over the last few weeks, I've noticed some trends.
The campaign started with the Tories determined to brand the election as government versus coalition on the economy. The Prime Minister has shameless mislead Canadians by telling them the coalition didn't like the Conservative budget and that's why we're having an election. While the other parties in the House of Commons may not have liked the budget, that's not why we're having an election. My suspicion is that none of the opposition parties in the House could have been able to justify defeating the government on the budget alone. The Tories were too high in the polls, the budget was too neutral, and Canadians weren't ready. What actually felled the government was a lost no-confidence vote. The Prime Minister shrugs it off saying his party doesn't agree that they were in contempt. Well, of course not, but this was not a mere vote in the House, it was a confidence motion, losing which means the Prime Minister has failed to do his job properly. So, legally, technically, speaking, the governing Tories were found in contempt by Parliament, and, more than just that, the Speaker of the House, the neutral leader, also found the Tories in contempt. The Prime Minister's flippant dismissal of these basic facts reinforces the need for this election.
The Liberals started the campaign seemingly determined to slowly introduce Michael Ignatieff to the electorate. They decided instead to leak small portions of their platform until it was finally released in full early in week two. After which, Ignatieff has been thrust front and centre. The Liberals, on the back of a solid, popular platform and a surprisingly comfortable rookie leader began to make small steps in the polls. Then came the turning point.
At some point, for some reason, while the Tories were being dragged through the mud by the media, Canadians decided they'd had enough of the Liberals. Outside of Ontario, the Liberals have stalled 6 to 10 points behind the Conservatives. The Tories had to struggle to explain why a student in London was booted from a Conservative rally. Then they desperately released a damning draft of the Auditor General's report on the G8/G20 Summit because it was less damning than the one previously released by (I hear) an NDP supporter. That was followed by an alleged attempt to steal a ballot box at a University of Guelph special ballot while former Tory cabinet minister Helena Guergis took aim at her former boss for throwing her under a bus driven by secret allegations of indiscretion. All this adds up to a disastrous week of campaigning. Except that Stephen Harper, appearing overly medicated behind rimless glasses and under hair that would make Kerry Fraser proud, keeps trolling along proving his inexplicable invincibility. With a quick flick of the tongue, Harper manages to shrug all of this off as partisan politics and redirect the debate back to the economy.
The economy is where the Conservatives hold a real advantage. While we might be inclined to think that massively over-inflated deficits and exorbitant expenditures on jets, jails, and G8 summits would overwhelm the obvious advantage a sitting Prime Minister has in metrics like leadership and economic stewardship, it hasn't happened. The Conservatives continue to float above the rest on a cloud of voter apathy and willful blindness.
So now, half-way through the campaign, nothing much has changed. Polls are indicating anything from a very narrow Conservative majority to a weakened minority. That is to say, of course, pretty close to what we have now. The legions of Liberals who supposedly stayed away from Stephane Dion and the vote in 2008 don't seem to have been flooding back into the picture. The one place where the Liberals are showing strength is in social media. They seem to be winning the support of the connected youth. Unfortunately, these people are historically less inclined to show up on election day, meaning all the social media support in the world may not be enough to swing the vote.
Where do we go from here? Stephen Harper and the Conservatives need to continue to float along, not straying from their strict message. Scrutinized guest lists and 5 question limits may be offensive to those with democratic sensitivities, but they are working. The Liberals, readying to release their crop of living (former) Prime Ministers, need to make a switch. Their message of respect for democracy has had little influence. While they need to continue to hammer this message, they also need to introduce something new. They haven't been able to dent Harper's advantage in leadership or economic stewardship, so those should be considered no-fly zones. The message needs to be health care. That's what Canadians care about. That's where Harper is seriously vulnerable. And that is where undecideds can be lured into the Liberal camp.
Let`s see where we go from here!
Showing posts with label Liberal Party of Canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal Party of Canada. Show all posts
16 April 2011
17 January 2011
If an election is coming, here's how the Liberals can win it
My former co-blogger Pat McIver tweeted today in reference to a recent Globe and Mail article. The article explores Liberal Party and Official Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff's options should an election everyone thinks is coming actually come this spring. The numbers show a slight Conservative advantage (generally in the range of about 5% +/- a couple). So where should Iggy and the Grits be looking for votes? Should they target the NDP, who has long been stealing left-leaning Liberal voters, or the Conservatives themselves?
In my opinion, the Liberals need to go straight at the Conservatives. Bold? Absolutely. But not foolish. And besides that, nobody ever got anywhere without taking a chance.
The Conservatives have alienated a large portion of their supporters. The last - disastrous - budget sent many fiscally conservative Tories into a major tizzy (Mr. McIver included). While many of them will have a hard time finding evidence that a Liberal budget would have been any different, the fact remains that the last time any fiscal conservative was properly served by their government, it was a Liberal government with a right-leaning Finance Minister. Well, the current Liberal Party has done one better: it has a right-leaning leader (and would-be Prime Minister) and a former RBC Chief Economist (and would-be Finance Minister). Since advocating for expensive economic subsidies in late 2008 and early 2009, the Liberal Party under Michael Ignatieff has consistently advocated for responsible budgets.* There is a large section of (small-c) conservatives who are looking for that kind of fiscal direction from federal politicians.
But Ignatieff can't afford to lose his current supporters either. Current Liberals, while many of them are also looking for balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, value social responsibility. This means continuing to advocate and protect Canada's successful and valuable social programs, and cutting the ones that don't work. This also means coming up with a meaningful environmental policy that Canadians are telling government they want. Canadians, Conservative, Liberal or otherwise, are ashamed of being part of Canada the pariah state. To be clear, being environmentally and socially responsible does not require being fiscally irresponsible. By directing tax breaks and subsidies in the right direction, instead of continuing in the wrong direction (for example, the [admittedly] Liberal initiated subsidies for tar sands exploration), the government can promote growth while being fiscally responsible.** Ideally, that means putting a few billion dollars into a struggling green industry instead of a booming oil industry.
The big issue right now, the issue the federal political parties are drawing the line in the sand over, is corporate tax cuts. The Conservative government committed to, and has refused to abandon, absurd corporate tax cuts. Rather than relying on some pie-in-the-sky theory that cutting corporate tax cuts in the middle of a massive deficit will boost the Canadian economy and create growth, the Liberals (and the NDP) have advocated a more responsible approach: cancel the tax cuts until the government's fiscal house is in order. Corporate tax cuts now are like asking for a pay cut at work so that your company can save money when you can't afford to pay the rent. Unfortunately the Conservative government is committed to cutting off the nose to spite the face.
My message to Michael Ignatieff: go at the Conservatives with a strong, responsible fiscal policy that includes balanced budgets and reasonable spending. Show Canadians how a Liberal government will turn massive deficits into a small surplus over the course of their term in office. Show Canadians how we can make the right environmental steps by promoting the right industries. A government that is willing to protect the environment by stimulating the right sectors of the economy (instead of the wrong ones) will be rewarded by the majority of reasonable Canadians. Even the left-leaning Liberals who've been voting NDP will be won with that simple message. Canadians have never really liked Stephen Harper, but neither have they had a reason to go anywhere else. It is time to give them that reason.
----------
Notes:
* The disastrous budget of the "Coalition of the Willing" (including the Tories who actually introduced it and voted for it) was a mistake. But two years on the Liberal message, under a new leader (that budget was initially advocated for while the Liberals were led by Stephane Dion), has been fiscal restraint and responsibility. Yes, Ignatieff's Liberals have asked Stephen Harper why he didn't spend the money in the budget as he said he would, but that's not advocating irresponsible spending, that's advocating an adherence to the law of the budget. It's like saying, "Would we have introduced that last budget? No. But Parliament approved it and now you need to stick to it, right or wrong." Ignatieff's Liberals have advocated, consistently, fiscal responsibility.
** Yes, the Liberals in the 1990s created the tar sands subsidies that I'm advocating against. And in the 1990s, when oil was cheap and the tar sands industry was floundering, those subsidies and tax breaks made economic sense. That industry is booming now (and booming as irresponsibly as possible). It is time to revoke those subsidies - they no longer make economic sense. Subsidizing an industry is something a government can reasonably do when that industry is struggling or in its infancy, not when it is mature and booming. It is time to shift those subsidies to a new struggling, infant, industry - green industry.
In my opinion, the Liberals need to go straight at the Conservatives. Bold? Absolutely. But not foolish. And besides that, nobody ever got anywhere without taking a chance.
The Conservatives have alienated a large portion of their supporters. The last - disastrous - budget sent many fiscally conservative Tories into a major tizzy (Mr. McIver included). While many of them will have a hard time finding evidence that a Liberal budget would have been any different, the fact remains that the last time any fiscal conservative was properly served by their government, it was a Liberal government with a right-leaning Finance Minister. Well, the current Liberal Party has done one better: it has a right-leaning leader (and would-be Prime Minister) and a former RBC Chief Economist (and would-be Finance Minister). Since advocating for expensive economic subsidies in late 2008 and early 2009, the Liberal Party under Michael Ignatieff has consistently advocated for responsible budgets.* There is a large section of (small-c) conservatives who are looking for that kind of fiscal direction from federal politicians.
But Ignatieff can't afford to lose his current supporters either. Current Liberals, while many of them are also looking for balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, value social responsibility. This means continuing to advocate and protect Canada's successful and valuable social programs, and cutting the ones that don't work. This also means coming up with a meaningful environmental policy that Canadians are telling government they want. Canadians, Conservative, Liberal or otherwise, are ashamed of being part of Canada the pariah state. To be clear, being environmentally and socially responsible does not require being fiscally irresponsible. By directing tax breaks and subsidies in the right direction, instead of continuing in the wrong direction (for example, the [admittedly] Liberal initiated subsidies for tar sands exploration), the government can promote growth while being fiscally responsible.** Ideally, that means putting a few billion dollars into a struggling green industry instead of a booming oil industry.
The big issue right now, the issue the federal political parties are drawing the line in the sand over, is corporate tax cuts. The Conservative government committed to, and has refused to abandon, absurd corporate tax cuts. Rather than relying on some pie-in-the-sky theory that cutting corporate tax cuts in the middle of a massive deficit will boost the Canadian economy and create growth, the Liberals (and the NDP) have advocated a more responsible approach: cancel the tax cuts until the government's fiscal house is in order. Corporate tax cuts now are like asking for a pay cut at work so that your company can save money when you can't afford to pay the rent. Unfortunately the Conservative government is committed to cutting off the nose to spite the face.
My message to Michael Ignatieff: go at the Conservatives with a strong, responsible fiscal policy that includes balanced budgets and reasonable spending. Show Canadians how a Liberal government will turn massive deficits into a small surplus over the course of their term in office. Show Canadians how we can make the right environmental steps by promoting the right industries. A government that is willing to protect the environment by stimulating the right sectors of the economy (instead of the wrong ones) will be rewarded by the majority of reasonable Canadians. Even the left-leaning Liberals who've been voting NDP will be won with that simple message. Canadians have never really liked Stephen Harper, but neither have they had a reason to go anywhere else. It is time to give them that reason.
----------
Notes:
* The disastrous budget of the "Coalition of the Willing" (including the Tories who actually introduced it and voted for it) was a mistake. But two years on the Liberal message, under a new leader (that budget was initially advocated for while the Liberals were led by Stephane Dion), has been fiscal restraint and responsibility. Yes, Ignatieff's Liberals have asked Stephen Harper why he didn't spend the money in the budget as he said he would, but that's not advocating irresponsible spending, that's advocating an adherence to the law of the budget. It's like saying, "Would we have introduced that last budget? No. But Parliament approved it and now you need to stick to it, right or wrong." Ignatieff's Liberals have advocated, consistently, fiscal responsibility.
** Yes, the Liberals in the 1990s created the tar sands subsidies that I'm advocating against. And in the 1990s, when oil was cheap and the tar sands industry was floundering, those subsidies and tax breaks made economic sense. That industry is booming now (and booming as irresponsibly as possible). It is time to revoke those subsidies - they no longer make economic sense. Subsidizing an industry is something a government can reasonably do when that industry is struggling or in its infancy, not when it is mature and booming. It is time to shift those subsidies to a new struggling, infant, industry - green industry.
19 December 2008
A Liberal's Manifesto
I’ve been asked many times before, often by my former co-blogger Mr. McIver, why I support the Liberal Party of Canada. My explanations range from legitimate politics, to historical alignment, to convenience. Here follows some of my reasoning.
I have always seen myself as a Liberal. My first political memory is probably Jean Chretien’s electoral victory in 1993 (when I was 11). I vaguely remember hearing about the GST and NAFTA before that, but I didn’t have any understanding of what they meant. It wasn’t until well into the Chretien years that I started to understand and admire how the Liberals rationalized government spending. But more than how the Liberals governed, I think I was made a Liberal simply because they governed. At that time the Liberals dominated federal politics. The PC Party had been destroyed and the only viable opposition was the Bloc. Who could I have supported at the time? From 1993 until the new millennium there was no legitimate alternative for a political neophyte.
Then came the resurgence of the Conservatives. I remember watching as Preston Manning, whom I quietly supported, lost the leadership of the Canadian Alliance Party. I decided I couldn’t support Stockwell Day. Then I watched Peter MacKay hand the PC Party over to Stephen Harper. Those two events have kept me from considering a shift to the political right.
The other primary reason I originally aligned myself with the Liberals was a job. After two years studying political science at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo I got a summer job at then-MP Roger Gallaway’s constituency office. I was recruited by the many local Liberals who passed through the office. My respect for these people (and, secondarily, my own selfish reasons) made me want to join the party and I haven’t wanted to leave since.
But more than coincidence and timing, I consider myself a Liberal for many concrete reasons.
I believe in fiscal prudence. While some might point to Martin’s liberal spending increases during the latter years of his reign, I prefer to point to how he and Chretien gave the government a surplus and how he left the government with a surplus. Martin's spending increases came when the economy was growing. To do otherwise would have been irrational.
I believe in a strong national government. I believe that Canadians need national standards. I understand that there are federal and provincial jurisdictions, but they too often lead to varying standards and inconsistencies. What good will BC’s carbon tax do when Alberta’s tar sands industry is ravaging our environment? How can we have Ontario’s manufacturing base and Alberta’s energy base fighting tooth-and-nail?
I believe in giving Canadians a level playing field. Tax cuts shouldn’t be for the wealthy, but for the poor. Social programs are necessary. War can be justified in extreme circumstances. Policy isn’t good or bad based on the public’s ability to understand it. It is a party’s and a politician’s obligation to educate the public about policy. Elections should be fought on policy and principle, not vague concepts, lies, and libel.
Ultimately, I support the Liberal Party because I have, over my seven years as a member, felt a part of the party’s decision making. I have drafted policy proposals, and voted for leaders and candidates. I have supported fundraising and profile-raising events. I have been intimately involved in election campaigning. I have seen discussion and disagreement within the party.
Could I ever switch allegiances? Perhaps. Crowning Ignatieff instead of insisting on a vote is just one example of where I’ve disagreed with the party. But for now, I respect the tradition and believe in the future of the party.
Do I always support the Liberal Party? No. If you’ve read my blogging you know I have a mind of my own. When conceiving the Political Polarity blog, Pat had suggested names that included the words “Grit” and “Tory”, but I suggested something more non-partisan (thus we had www.politicalpolarity.com). I believe I am slightly left of center on many issues, but surprisingly right on others. I believe the Liberal Party best represents my political philosophy - more often than any other party. Perhaps Pat put it best: the Liberal Party “stands up for my freedoms and my rights as a citizen, respects my pocket book whenever possible and has clearly defined positions, regardless of other people’s opinions, on the major issues of the day.”
And that’s what matters to me.
I have always seen myself as a Liberal. My first political memory is probably Jean Chretien’s electoral victory in 1993 (when I was 11). I vaguely remember hearing about the GST and NAFTA before that, but I didn’t have any understanding of what they meant. It wasn’t until well into the Chretien years that I started to understand and admire how the Liberals rationalized government spending. But more than how the Liberals governed, I think I was made a Liberal simply because they governed. At that time the Liberals dominated federal politics. The PC Party had been destroyed and the only viable opposition was the Bloc. Who could I have supported at the time? From 1993 until the new millennium there was no legitimate alternative for a political neophyte.
Then came the resurgence of the Conservatives. I remember watching as Preston Manning, whom I quietly supported, lost the leadership of the Canadian Alliance Party. I decided I couldn’t support Stockwell Day. Then I watched Peter MacKay hand the PC Party over to Stephen Harper. Those two events have kept me from considering a shift to the political right.
The other primary reason I originally aligned myself with the Liberals was a job. After two years studying political science at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo I got a summer job at then-MP Roger Gallaway’s constituency office. I was recruited by the many local Liberals who passed through the office. My respect for these people (and, secondarily, my own selfish reasons) made me want to join the party and I haven’t wanted to leave since.
But more than coincidence and timing, I consider myself a Liberal for many concrete reasons.
I believe in fiscal prudence. While some might point to Martin’s liberal spending increases during the latter years of his reign, I prefer to point to how he and Chretien gave the government a surplus and how he left the government with a surplus. Martin's spending increases came when the economy was growing. To do otherwise would have been irrational.
I believe in a strong national government. I believe that Canadians need national standards. I understand that there are federal and provincial jurisdictions, but they too often lead to varying standards and inconsistencies. What good will BC’s carbon tax do when Alberta’s tar sands industry is ravaging our environment? How can we have Ontario’s manufacturing base and Alberta’s energy base fighting tooth-and-nail?
I believe in giving Canadians a level playing field. Tax cuts shouldn’t be for the wealthy, but for the poor. Social programs are necessary. War can be justified in extreme circumstances. Policy isn’t good or bad based on the public’s ability to understand it. It is a party’s and a politician’s obligation to educate the public about policy. Elections should be fought on policy and principle, not vague concepts, lies, and libel.
Ultimately, I support the Liberal Party because I have, over my seven years as a member, felt a part of the party’s decision making. I have drafted policy proposals, and voted for leaders and candidates. I have supported fundraising and profile-raising events. I have been intimately involved in election campaigning. I have seen discussion and disagreement within the party.
Could I ever switch allegiances? Perhaps. Crowning Ignatieff instead of insisting on a vote is just one example of where I’ve disagreed with the party. But for now, I respect the tradition and believe in the future of the party.
Do I always support the Liberal Party? No. If you’ve read my blogging you know I have a mind of my own. When conceiving the Political Polarity blog, Pat had suggested names that included the words “Grit” and “Tory”, but I suggested something more non-partisan (thus we had www.politicalpolarity.com). I believe I am slightly left of center on many issues, but surprisingly right on others. I believe the Liberal Party best represents my political philosophy - more often than any other party. Perhaps Pat put it best: the Liberal Party “stands up for my freedoms and my rights as a citizen, respects my pocket book whenever possible and has clearly defined positions, regardless of other people’s opinions, on the major issues of the day.”
And that’s what matters to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)