Featured:
Friday, November 6, 2009 02:58 PM
Victims of their own success
No doubt, many Conservative supporters are going to be thrilled if the federal long-gun registry meets its demise.
One wonders, though, if the party's strategists are all going to be quite as enthused once all is said and done.
As the Conservatives have drifted further toward the centre of the political spectrum, and abandoned most of the more populist elements of the old Reform Party agenda, they've needed a few signature policies to reassure their base that they haven't lost touch with their roots. The problem is that there's a finite supply of policies that achieve that effect, without turning off other voters the Conservatives need to form government. And once they're actually implemented, it's obviously no longer possible to keep them on your agenda.
That would explain why the Conservatives have tended to dredge up some familiar tough-on-crime legislation when the prospect of an election looms, without putting it on the fast-track when things calm down. And it would also explain why they haven't exactly been pulling out all the stops to eliminate the hated gun registry in the four years since they took power.
I'm not sure exactly what it was that promped them to give such a hard sell to Candice Hoeppner's private members' bill; perhaps genuine convictions had something to do with it. But unless it gets bogged down in the Commons or in the Senate - the latter of which would be a Conservative dream come true - the registry will soon be removed from the Conservatives' arsenal.
If that proves the case, it may solidify the Conservative base in the next election, when the party is able to brag about it. But it won’t be able to keep going back to the well in the future.
Link to this post
Monday, November 2, 2009 12:17 PM
All roads lead to Windsor
I spent my weekend hanging around Windsor at the Ontario Liberal convention, which produced this column on the intersection of Dalton McGuinty's and Michael Ignatieff's problems.
In fairness to Ignatieff, to whom the column is not entirely flattering, he wasn't the only Liberal whose performance seemed a little incongruous. Even as McGuinty tried to strike a reasonably sombre tone, in keeping with both his surroundings and recent events in the province, some of his most high-profile members couldn't help themselves from the usual boosterism. One of the stranger moments came when Sandra Pupatello, a local MPP and the province's economic development minister, delivered a rather high-octane paean to the Premier for "transforming" Windsor - making it sound like it's a newly thriving metropolis, as opposed to the most economically depressed city in the country.
I thought that Finance Minister Dwight Duncan - another Windsor MPP who, I should mention, doubles as a rather excellent local tour guide - struck a somewhat more graceful note. Windsor, he said standing alongside Pupatello on Friday night, is "a city that is struggling, but a city that will get through this."
That is, I suspect, the message that McGuinty is going to try to deliver - somewhat more moderately - across the province over the next couple of years. He'll want to convey that he understands the difficulties Ontarians are going through, but that he's helping them weather the storm and emerge stronger after it.
It's not going to be an easy task for him. But putting the convention in Windsor - a place where there could be little sugar-coating of where things are at - may have helped him convey to his party the challenges ahead. As Pupatello's remarks seemed to demonstrate, some of them may still need to come around to that.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009 04:06 PM
Ignatieff: Cold as ice
Whatever his other problems, Michael Ignatieff evidently doesn't share Paul Martin's excessive loyalty.
That's mostly a good thing, as a leadership trait if not a personality one. Martin, as many people recall, stuck with the same team even after the 2004 election campaign - and, even more so, the brief period of governance that preceded it - had exposed glaring weaknesses. Ignatieff, by contrast, didn't even wait for the campaign; he recognized, or at least accepted others' assessment, that his office needed new leadership after the various foibles of the past few months.
Although I won't claim to know that office's inner workings, that strikes me as the right decision. Everything I've seen (and heard from Liberals) suggests a lack of strategic focus, particularly (though not exclusively) in messaging. It also appeared that the people who'd helped Ignatieff get the Liberal leadership were jealously guarding their turf, wary of outsiders who might steal their thunder.
Peter Donolo is a fairly risky choice as Ignatieff's chief of staff, since it remains to be seen how his somewhat frenetic style - which worked great when he was a communications director - will translate into running the whole show.
But aside from the obvious help he should offer with messaging, the value of having been in government previously shouldn't be underestimated - both in understanding how to get there, and in knowing where and how incumbents are vulnerable. Although his appointment is slightly reminiscent of the Jays bringing back Cito Gaston and Paul Beeston in hope of recapturing their '90s glories, Liberals should probably be encouraged that Ignatieff wasn't afraid to reach outside his own camp to someone who might be more likely to challenge him.
All that being said, there's something a little off-putting about the way this all went down, captured in Jane Taber's report from this morning:
While Toronto Liberals were chuffed - congratulatory emails have been exchanged throughout the night - the mood was entirely different in Ottawa.
Word began to leak out in the nation’s capital just after Question Period, with senior campaign people receiving calls about Mr. Donolo taking over and Mr. Davey’s departure.
But the rumours were consistently denied by Ms Fairbrother, who is also Mr. Davey's girlfriend.
Finally, at 9:40 p.m. a statement was released from the Liberal Leader, who had been in what was described as an “important meeting with Liberal MPs,” about the changes to his office...
But even the communications around Mr. Davey’s departure were handled poorly. He had been encouraged to get out the statement to clear up the rumours. Liberals, he was told by senior advisers, deserved the facts.
I don't know Ian Davey very well personally, having met him properly only once. What I do know is that, since Ignatieff's return to Canada, he's spent a hell of a lot of time trying to make him prime minister.
If he wasn't doing a good enough job of that, he deserved to be replaced; at the level he was working at, hurt feelings can't be too big a concern. But you have to wonder if he really needed to be humiliated in the process.
It's not clear to me how much of an effort Ignatieff made to allow Davey to save face, with a new posting (or at least a fancy title). But at the very least, he could have made sure that he was the very first person to know about it, and that the information came out clearly rather than a slow drip that must have been agonizing.
Like Jane writes, politics is a brutal business. But it doesn't need to be quite as brutal as Ignatieff made it.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009 02:55 PM
Your kindergarten education
Today's column on Dalton McGuinty's all-day kindergarten announcement seems to have appeared in most but not all print editions, so in case you missed it, here it is.
I've been spending a great deal of time on the early-learning file lately, because it strikes me as the sort of political issue that normal people actually care about. It'll be nice to move on to some other stories for the next while - including, I hope, in this space later today - but here are the rest of the kindergarten-related ones, for posterity:
- On the Liberals having to break their own class-size rules
- On whether it's possible to move both quickly and comprehensively
That last one appears to be behind a subscription wall; the rest are available for the perusal of one and all. I know, I know...it's so hard to choose where to start.
Friday, October 23, 2009 12:11 PM
Toronto or bust
A fairly extensive take on today's Ontario economic update, written for tomorrow's paper, will follow shortly. In the meanwhile, a quick follow-up on today's column on the somewhat less sexy topic of a national securities regulator.
In that piece, which is mostly about why Ontario has to avoid letting its overeagerness show, I wrote that the province may be prepared to compromise on where the regulator would be located:
There are murmurs, in fact, that the province would be prepared to bend on its long-held stance that a national regulator must be officially based out of Toronto. In reality, most of the work would likely be done there anyway. So if it would help the cause to locate its nominal headquarters in Ottawa - or perhaps across the river in Gatineau, Que. - that's a compromise some provincial officials would be prepared to make. (The suggestion that it could instead be located somewhere like Winnipeg prompts more indignation at the impracticalities.)
Although it doesn't seem to have any issue with the premise of the column, Dalton McGuinty's office has subsequently been in touch to dispute that particular detail. The regulator must be located in Toronto, I was told, and there's simply no willingness to bend on that.
For what it's worth, I'm still skeptical that Ontario's government would actually oppose having a single regulator if the plan was to locate it (for official purposes) somewhere else. But it's apparently prepared to at least put up a strong fight.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009 01:52 PM
Dueling Liberals
So...guess that whole idea of picking one narrative and sticking with it hasn't quite taken root yet, huh?
In fairness, my criticism last week was more that Michael Ignatieff's Liberals have failed to pick one line of attack and stick with it. Obviously, they can't neglect laying out their own policies - something they've rightly been criticized for doing.
Successful opposition parties, though, map out days - weeks, even - to ensure they effectively drive home whatever key message they've settled on. It's something we're seeing more of here at Queen's Park from the provincial Tories since Tim Hudak took over.
It doesn't look like Wayne Easter's stunt would have been a home run even if it had been done on its own, but stepping all over themselves clearly didn't help.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009 01:25 PM
Why Dwight Duncan wants to depress you
I don't want to repeat myself. But if you're looking at coverage of yesterday's speech by Dwight Duncan or tomorrow's economic update, and trying to figure out what all the doom and gloom means, I'm hoping my column from earlier this week will help out a little.
I can't guarantee it'll be useful four or five months from now, when the next provincial budget comes down, but two days in I think it's holding up all right.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009 01:25 PM
Don't be insecure
Amid all the other silliness they've been getting themselves into, their propensity for self-inflicted wounds evidently still limitless, Stephen Harper's Conservatives have done at least one thing that appears to have been borne largely of principle.
A national securities regulator has been an ambition of their government, and of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty in particular, for years. As John Ibbitson explained this past weekend, it'll be a huge headache to get through. But at a time when we expect governments to be taking measures to make us more competitive in the post-recession world, a little heavy lifting seems worthwhile if it will help make it simpler and more inviting to do business in Canada.
That being said, political considerations are never far from the equation in Ottawa. Which raises the question: What's Michael Ignatieff going to do about all this?
For the Liberal Leader, there may be some temptation - despite all the good economic arguments in favour of a single regulator, and the lack of good economic arguments against - to oppose it. After all, there are few things he'd like better right about now than to regain some momentum in Quebec. Considering the degree to which nationalists are already whipping up a furour against this incursion on provincial turf, Ignatieff may see his opportunity.
At first glance, there would seem to be little strategic downside to taking that position - or, more to the point, little upside for the Liberals in supporting it. It's not as though the opposition is going to get any credit for a policy being initiated by the government, and neither is a national regulator a red-hot topic in the provinces that support one.
You have to wonder, though, how such small-mindedness would affect the broader impressions being formed of Ignatieff (which are not exactly universally positive to begin with). Here would be the Prime Minister, perceived to be taking a risk for something he believes is essential to enhancing national competitiveness - and here would be the opposition leader, playing region against region for short-term political gain.
To date, the limited comments the federal Liberals have made on this subject have been decidedly ambiguous. Presumably, they're currently trying to figure out how best to play it. Their decision will give a good indication about what type of party they're trying to build.
Monday, October 19, 2009 02:16 PM
The numbers game
The past couple of weeks at Queen's Park have offered an interesting lesson in damage control, or lack thereof.
There are a whole bunch of things Dalton McGuinty's Liberals could have done differently to minimize the fallout from the eHealth scandal, or at least to change the topic. But one of the aspects that's jumping out at me is the extent to which the government failed to manage the numbers game.
In virtually every media report on the subject, you'll now see something along the lines that the province squandered $1-billion on eHealth. I used that figure myself last week, in passing, in my column on Deb Matthews (albeit with "perceived" as a moderate qualifier.)
In reality, the province has spent about $1-billion on eHealth; it hasn't squandered quite that much.
That's not to say it hasn't squandered a whole hell of a lot. But the eHealth agency under Sarah Kramer's watch, which has grabbed the most headlines for its reckless contracts and expenditures, accounted for a small portion of the $1-billion. The bulk of that figure was spent by the Smart System for Health Agency - which, while terribly inefficient and suffering from a severe lack of strategic planning, doesn't have nothing to show for its efforts.
What SSHA has built, more or less, is an information network; what's missing from it is the relevant information. The provincial auditor's central point, in his report earlier this month, was that there's been a horrible lack of coordination in all this, resulting in a "super-highway" that costs $72-million annually to maintain, but barely has any passengers.
That's shameful, but the shame is in Ontario's government - like various others - proving woefully unable to wrap its head around a major IT project. The lack of oversight in contracts and procurements, while significant and troubling, is actually a comparatively small part of the problem.
For obvious reasons, though, it's much more effective for opposition parties to frame governments as corrupt than it is to highlight their lack of IT prowess. It's also best to keep the story as straightforward as possible. So the provincial Tories, and to a lesser extent the New Democrats, have kept the focus squarely on the "sweetheart deals," to the extent that someone with a passing interest would assume they accounted for more or less the full $1-billion - which, if true, would be an absolutely mind-boggling sum.
For reasons best known to themselves, McGuinty's Liberals made few active efforts to prevent that number from being central to the story. When I interviewed Deb Matthews for the aforementioned column, she shook her head when I mentioned it, and proceeded to point out the advances that had been made. But from the time that the contents of the report leaked, through its release and the ensuing reaction, the Liberals were so eager to show that they shared the opposition's outrage that they never made much effort to spin a lower number.
There's a certain irony that the eHealth scandal has been widely referred to as a "$1-billion boondoggle." If that terms seems familiar, it's because it was also applied to alleged missing funds from the old federal HRDC ministry, which cost then-minister Jane Stewart her job. As it turned out, the actual amount of waste was a tiny fraction of that total, but that detail became a footnote by the time it entered the narrative.
The eHealth story isn't nearly as trumped-up - it's a legitimate scandal. But it's even bigger than it needs to be because, like in that federal case, the government allowed a big, fat number to take hold.
Thursday, October 15, 2009 08:28 AM
The search for a narrative
Amid all the bad news for the federal Liberals this fall, the good news is that they've finally started doing a little homework. Spurred on largely by the efforts of Gerard Kennedy - who knows something about opposition from his seven-plus years as a senior critic in the provincial version - they've begun to do some digging rather than just feign outrage at the headlines of the day.
As a result, the Liberals have recently had some success highlighting the Conservatives' propensity to disproprtionately reward their own ridings, and more recently to reward fellow Tories with patronage appointments. The question now is whether that's a narrative they're going to invest some real time in.
It goes without saying at this point, based on the polling numbers alone, that the Liberals have failed to make a strong case against the current government. That's partly because they haven't tried to make a case - they've tried to make a whole bunch of different cases, and failed to see any of them through.
Over the past ten months, we've heard that the Conservatives are inadequately committed to fighting the recession, and unsympathetic to Canadians suffering its effects. We've heard that they're a bunch of spendthrifts who've recklessly ran up a huge deficit. We've heard that they're embarrassing Canada on the world stage, on everything from foreign aid to consular services to environmentalism (or lack thereof). We've heard that they're Reformers in sheep's clothing, waiting to unleash their secret agenda upon the masses. And so on.
A couple of these messages are contradictory; most aren't. Some may even complement each other. But they've not been constructed into any kind of coherent and consistent theme.
If the Liberals want to build the case that this government is practicing politics-as-usual, more interested in helping out its friends than in helping people who are in real need, then they'll need to set aside some of the other stuff and focus on that. They'll need to map out a strategy to exert some control over the news cycle, rather than just follow it, and they'll need to stick with that strategy rather than get distracted by all sorts of shiny objects along the way.
Of course, it's entirely up for debate whether that's a case that can be successfully made, particularly by a party that - in the eyes of many Canadians - came to more or less define politics-as-usual by the end of its time in office. But if not that theme, the Liberals need to commit to another one. Otherwise, they'll just look like an opposition party flailing about - which, when you get down to it, is pretty much what they've been for the better part of the past four years.
Adam Radwanski Contributors
Adam Radwanski
Adam Radwanski recently moved to Queen's Park, where he analyzes and reports on provincial affairs for The Globe and Mail. Previously a member of The Globe's editorial board and the Politics Editor for globeandmail.com, he was formerly the managing editor of Macleans.ca. He has worked as an editorial writer and columnist at the National Post and as a columnist for the Ottawa Citizen and The Hill Times, and was the founder of Canada'a first online political magazine. Adam has also written extensively on the arts, doubling as the Post's music critic from 2004-06. He was a 2009 National Newspaper Award finalist for editorial writing, and his blog was among the finalists for a 2008 EPPY award.