The Globe and Mail

Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:00 AM EDT

Mulcair’s oil-sands musing risks halting NDP momentum

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair’s thoughts about whether Alberta’s oil sands are causing a “Dutch disease” for the Canadian economy have touched off a lively debate about his political strategy.

Some sense his approach is clever, if diabolical: that he wants to deliberately split the country, rallying Ontarians and Quebeckers to put the NDP over the top by blaming the West’s success for Central Canada’s misfortunes.

I very much doubt this is Mr. Mulcair’s strategy. But if it were his strategy, it would fail badly.

The idea that most Ontarians would rather reverse the economic growth that is happening in the West is ludicrous. True, they might love to return to a day when their province was the most powerful economic engine in the country – but by winning a race to the top, not by failing less badly than others.

Voters in the largest province may not think that oil-sands activity makes all boats rise at the same rate, but they know better than to believe that a good day in the oil sands is a bad day on Bay Street or in Hamilton or Kitchener. There are people working in small, medium and larger companies that sell goods and services to oil-sands projects every day. Many union leaders know their members have benefited from oil-sands expansion.

The Dutch-disease argument might feel like a comforting explanation for the loss of manufacturing jobs in some areas, because it suggests victimization. But even if it were true, it's little more than a diagnosis with no credible cure. If Mr. Mulcair truly wanted to rally people against the economics of the oil sands, he would need to make a much stronger case than simply reminding them that we sold more manufactured goods when our dollar was cheaper.

Mr. Mulcair’s pitch right now seems half chalk and half cheese. He dislikes the environmental impacts but doesn’t want to outright oppose oil-sands development. So he hints at a “Goldilocks” option: tax the oil sands to slow things down, lessen the environmental impact, let the dollar weaken, and the economy everywhere else will do better.

Setting aside how divisive an idea like this could be (already is?), as an economic blueprint it could bring to a halt the NDP’s forward momentum. If a right-wing economic think tank offered this prescription, it would raise eyebrows and doubts. For an NDP leader, it would do more to damage credibility than it would build support.

If the policy/strategy attributed to Mr. Mulcair is truly what he has in mind, he might cheer a portion of his base. But he’d also create lots of cracks in his coalition, especially with union members, to say nothing of many in the West. An opening for the Liberals is evident. Vulnerability to attack by the Conservatives is unmistakable.

Most Canadians want the country to harness the economic value of the oil sands, and apply appropriate environmental care. Arguing that the oil sands is an environmental problem that can’t be overcome would be bad enough strategy for the NDP. Decrying the oil sands as what’s wrong with the economy would make mainstream voters scratch their heads and wander away.

Link to this post 0 Comments

Monday, April 30, 2012 6:00 AM EDT

Tory stumbles and NDP strength spell trouble for Liberals

A federal minister paying top dollar for a glass of nutritious orange juice at a luxe hotel she moved to so she could smoke is not only great irony. It may have briefly been the most hazardous episode yet to the political health of the Conservatives.

The London smoking spree was so hard to defend the Tories tossed the “brazen it out” playbook with haste. Now of course, the story will exit the news, and likely pass from memory. But sloppy accounting, Muskoka patronage, and holiday helicopter rides blur the image of a government you thought was different. As determined as Stephen Harper is to avoid it, his government is accumulating scar tissue from self-inflicted wounds. He knows from his own happy experience that too many of these stories and voters start to shift their gaze, and look for an alternative. Maybe even consider choices one never thought they would.

The Prime Minister is shoulder-to-the-wheel on some big policy changes, as Saturday's analysis by John Ibbitson chronicled. He faces plenty of resistance on the substance. For some he is too timid, for others his direction is a disaster. But hardly anyone sees him as a man just lazing about, or living high on the public’s dime. He's got enough reason to be awake at night, without having to worry about ministers making the kind of decisions that Bev Oda did. The Tories only good moments with the Oda story came when it was obscured by even more outrageous sounding spending by the head of the Old Port of Montreal.

As beset all governments, there’ve been a string of problems over the years Harper has been in office, but generally with little effect. This was because people wanted to give the new government a chance to prove itself, because the Liberal brand still made many see red – and because Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff were unconvincing understudies.

The selection of Tom Mulcair has reset the clock. His lead in Quebec is huge, and plausibly durable. He’s a known entity, leading a party that many Quebeckers think shares their social values and economic orientation. He’s like the Bloc Québécois without separatism, something lots of Quebeckers have been yearning for.

If his numbers hold in Quebec, the problem faced by the Liberal Party goes from bad to dire. And not only because of the seats they would otherwise hope to win in Quebec.

The bigger challenge will be to find a place for themselves in the conversation that happens in the rest of the country. Some die-hard Liberal partisans believe the vast majority of Canadians would never consider voting NDP. This is, to put it kindly, irrational exuberance.

If people get fed up with incumbents, they do things you wouldn’t expect to make a change happen. Moreover, the conservatively-dressed, cabinet-experienced, lectern-using Mulcair is wearing a big “I’m a centrist” badge everywhere he goes. He’s campaigning like a man who knows his base has nowhere else to go – and that most of the new votes available have to come from the Liberal Party. Sort of like Stephen Harper does.

For several elections, scaring progressive voters into line has been a pretty key part of Liberal Party strategy. In so doing, the party drifted away from the centre and saw blue Liberals drift to a less threatening Harper. Now an NDP with more money, more seats, a bigger share of voice, and higher standing in the polls threatens to beat the Grits at their own game. More voters are now looking about, which has upped the stakes: The choices the Liberals make over the next few months may alter the course of Canadian politics, for decades to come.

Link to this post 0 Comments

Thursday, April 26, 2012 11:00 AM EDT

Environmental-review debate tests both Tory and NDP mettle

The announcement by Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver of an overhaul of environmental assessment rules kicks off one of the more critical debates that will be held during the life of this Parliament.

The political stakes are high because the debate could crystallize perceptions about both the Conservatives and the NDP for years to come. Where Canadians end up on this initiative will likely come down to two questions:

1. Whose motives will be more trusted: the Conservatives’ or their critics?

2. Will people feel confident the details of the policy are sound?

Here’s my take on the motive question. If Canadians conclude this package of reforms is about a government hell bent on economic expansion or smaller government, instead of smarter, more efficient protection of the environment, many will be wary.

So far, voters seem prepared to accept that some change is probably worthwhile. But at every turn, the public will be attentive to motive. When ministers talk about how long it takes to decide things, or the massive number of interventions that can be heard, this reinforces that the point of the exercise is good governance. However, spending millions to audit environmental NGOs may make voters wonder if the Conservatives are trying to stifle legitimate debate, or fear that their ideas won’t hold up under scrutiny.

If the motive question is a risk for the government, there’s risk for its opponents too. Should those who decry the proposals come off as disinterested in the economy, or indifferent to legitimate reform, they will find most Canadians drifting away and tuning them out.

In the opening salvos of this debate, the Conservatives and the NDP both made a pitch for the middle ground. Minister Oliver emphasized the importance of robust regulation, regardless of whether implemented by federal or provincial officials. His tone and message will help disarm the suggestion he wants a race to the bottom in terms of environmental protection.

For her part Megan Leslie, the NDP environment critic, was quick to acknowledge that there are areas where regulation can be improved. She made clear that the Thomas Mulcair-led NDP refuses to be typecast as the party that never met a regulation it didn’t like. If the NDP truly aspire to win an election (and a lot more seats outside of Quebec), taking a hard line against a wide array of major energy and resources projects would be politically disastrous.

If, as the debate unfolds, the Conservative motives are largely trusted, they will still need to ensure the policy features look sound. There have been several instances where a policy direction passed muster with the public, only to become undone by the details. Most want a well-equipped military, but not the procurement mess of the F-35. Everyone’s against child pornography, but few liked the privacy features in Public Safety Minister Vic Toews’s bill. The details of the environmental package will matter.

All in all, as these things go, this has been a pretty good start to a pretty important debate. While the passage of the legislation may not be in question, the debate is a test of whether there will be a healthy political competition between these two parties. Both the Tories and New Democrats will be weakened if they appear ideologically driven, and strengthened if they concentrate on sensible, pragmatic solutions.

There’s a happy chance of something constructive taking place: an important piece of legislation getting a full and thoughtful debate on its merits.

Link to this post 0 Comments

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:38 PM EDT

Harper’s handling of F-35 file further erodes accountability

The new Auditor-General says the Department of National Defence was overly optimistic about the cost of the F-35 fighter jet. Would that they were only guilty of more hope than sense.

To believe that, one would have to believe that they simply didn’t see all the stories from different parts of the world about costs of the F-35 rising and customers getting cold feet. That’s a tough sell. If DND officials didn’t grill their project partners on these issues, it’s either because they deliberately chose not to, or were encouraged not to. Hopefully, we’ll get to the bottom of whether ministers were genuinely misled by officials, or signalled that they preferred not knowing the facts.

The relationship between DND and the Conservative government started in 2006 with the most passionate embrace any political party has had with the Canadian military in recent history. But it’s been on the rocks for a while now.

On Tuesday, the government “unfriended” and “unfollowed” DND, changed the locks on the door, and cut up the credit card. Then they threw the brass under the bus, and drove back and forth a few times for good measure. Defence Minister Peter Mackay looked like the friend of both caught in the middle, perhaps under suspicion by both parties of wearing the other’s jersey.

But setting aside that bit of drama for a minute, how shocking was this week’s development?

The F-35 program must have been a growing concern within the Conservative caucus and Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s cabinet for a pretty long time. Regardless of what their DND briefing notes said, they read the clippings, they sat in the Commons and heard the charges from the opposition benches, as well as those of other critics of the F-35 program. There’s little chance that they presumed DND was right with its “don’t worry, be happy” line.

A more reasonable assumption is that they knew the day would come when they might have to soften and ultimately rescind their purchase intention. The only question was: What’s the least awkward way to do that. The best possible scenario was probably that the program would have collapsed in Washington in the face of the spiralling U.S. fiscal problem.

Barring that, as ugly as the Auditor-General’s report was, it may have been the next-best scenario for the Harper government to take the inevitable blow, pivot and try to move on. Whether this will work or not remains to be seen, of course. Opposition leaders will try to ensure that more forensic work is done, and that ministers are found to have deliberately misled the House. Jilted parties over at DND may fill up brown envelopes with damning information and litter the press gallery with them.

For the moment, though, the government survived Tuesday’s beating in part because they put one of their very best people, Rona Ambrose, front and centre. She fielded angry questions with a steady, serious tone. She offered no partisan bluster – so often done these days in the face of attack, but something that invariably makes a problem bigger rather than smaller. Instead she came across as someone with no affection for DND and no doubt about what her responsibility was. Her recent track record as steward of a huge naval procurement, which was remarkably free of controversy, is an important piece of context here as well.

Standing back from the short-term, cut-and-thrust opportunities and consequences of this issue, it’s hard not to feel that the idea of accountability is badly eroded. There was a time that an Auditor-General’s report like this would have been received by a prime minister, an apology would have been offered to Parliament and the public, and at least one senior resignation would have been tendered. Certainly as Official Opposition leader, Mr. Harper himself would have expected no less.

Link to this post 0 Comments

Sunday, April 1, 2012 12:28 PM EDT

Despite rough seas, Harper could still turn the tide on OAS

The debate about shifting the age of eligibility for Old Age Security pensions is really only beginning. But even though polls say most people would rather not see this change, it’s not a given the Conservatives will lose on this issue as the debate matures.

The first volley by the Conservatives was something of a misfire. Characterizing a shift in pension eligibility as part of a sweeping transformation of the country played into the hands of the Prime Minister’s critics. By using charged language himself, Stephen Harper legitimized the use of heated language to raise fears about his intentions. His speech in Davos inadvertently gave oxygen to the suspicions of those who think he has a secret agenda to dismantle all that is good about Canada.

Moreover, the opening framing of this idea caught people by surprise. A sweeping transformation around entitlements is the kind of thing that Canadians think Greece needs. Possibly France. Perhaps even the United States. But we’ve been told by the Conservatives that Canada has been pretty disciplined and while we must be cautious, we can generally avoid traumatic change.

Most people recognize there are a series of demographic challenges coming in Canada, but to date there has been little meaningful debate about the choices the country will be faced with, when we have rapidly increasing numbers of retirees relative to the number of workers in our labour force.

If the Conservatives can make the debate become about those choices, they have a fair chance of succeeding in the battle over the OAS policy. In recent weeks, it seems they have reset their communications strategy, and while the new version comes off a bit dry and actuarial, they are at least now sticking to their main point: Unchanged, the current system will eventually eat up an unprecedented amount of tax money. Taxpayers would inevitably be on the hook for sending more money to Ottawa, having Ottawa borrow more on their behalf, or seeing other programs significantly cut back or eliminated.

While it seldom gets discussed this way, the OAS policy announced this week might be the single best thing the Harper government will ever do for younger Canadians. Everyone has been talking about the implications for older people, but there are no implications for anyone over the age of 53. The voter group the Conservatives are most vulnerable with is the 45 to 53 age group. And while many of them won't like this change, they may not like the alternatives much either. This is a demographic group that generally prefers lower taxes, balanced budgets, and good health and education services. Finally, they have at least a decade to find a way to replace the two years of OAS payments they will lose.

Most folks younger than 40 spend little time on the math of their retirement. In my research work, I hear them worry about the looming demographic crunch, and what it will mean for them during their working years, not later. Their concerns usually don’t come from an uncharitable place; they are more often voiced with dismay and worry. They care about older people, but face real challenges of their own.

For many, finding great jobs despite good educational credentials is harder than they expected. Buying that first home is a more and more elusive dream. Many watch as their parents near retirement age, but face a quandary as their savings and pension plans will fall short of their needs. When these voters think about the mounting pressures on the health care system, which already seems strained, they wonder how it will be affordable as the number of seniors almost doubles. If they hear that OAS could one day consume one in every five tax dollars they pay, this might well seem to them a bill they can't afford to pay.

The debate about OAS is a fiscal and actuarial one for sure. And it touches on the generosity of our society when it comes to seniors. But there’s a third part of this debate: finding an approach that’s fair and reasonable for younger Canadians, whose money or credit we are talking about, at the end of the day.

I'm not suggesting that this policy doesn't present political opportunities for opposition parties, or that the government will be unscathed as the debate unfolds. Only that the outcome isn't a slam dunk, despite the fact that polls, on their surface, show significant public resistance to Mr. Harper's move.

Link to this post 0 Comments

Saturday, March 24, 2012 11:37 AM EDT

Final pitches by NDP contenders fail to inspire

In the last year, more Canadians seem to have warmed to the idea of supporting the NDP. Watching Friday’s speeches by NDP leadership candidates, I sensed the party is getting cold feet about this relationship.

For one thing, there was more talk about how not to win than how to win a general election. Several candidates went out of their way to say it's better to lose than to compromise their principles. Whenever this was said, it got a rise out of the crowd – who curiously didn’t rise for much.

Now, it’s hard not to quarrel with the sentiment behind this point. Except that nobody wins elections in our system without putting at least some water in their wine.

If New Democrats don’t want to move toward the centre in order to have a chance at wielding power, because they might win but wouldn’t be able to follow their ideology, that doesn’t square so well with their frustration about Stephen Harper. He merged his Conservative Party with a party he considered to be the Diet Coke of conservatism. Now he’s been running the country for six years – and according to the NDP, pretty much pursuing his ideology.

Friday’s speeches tended to draw heavily on three themes:

1. The NDP must win to right the wrongs of past decades. Bad trade deals, policies that favour business, loss of union power. Rhetoric that warms the base, and leadership races are about the base, but this is a unique moment in the history of the party, because so many other people are watching too. And for them, much of this may sound dated and out of touch with how they see the economy today. They may wonder if building up unions, weakening corporations, and unwinding free trade will really create more jobs for young Canadians, make sure that older people can live with dignity, and ensure we all have access to good health care.

2. Harper and his Tories are thugs with bad values. This is a pretty popular song in gatherings like this, and there can be a broader market for it too. But like any song that has been played a lot, it needs a fresh arrangement or it begins to sound like elevator music. Great political leaders make these arguments come alive every time, bring people to their feet, convince them that something can be done about the people who upset them. There was little of that on offer Friday.

3. The NDP can win. Much effort was put into saying that victory was within reach, but it sometimes sounded like neither the speaker nor the audience were convinced it was true. It felt like what a coach might say in a dressing room after the second period, down by five goals, instead of the speech you’d hear before the first game of a new season. The path to victory, several said, was to unite progressives. This may be good strategy, but isn’t a great speech.

Sitting in the cavernous room, I found myself recalling how over the years so many powerful political speeches come from those on the left. Democrats like Cuomo, Jackson, Ted, Robert and John Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Lyndon Johnson on civil rights. Speeches that remind people of deplorable problems, our moral responsibility to help others, hope about what can be done, and offer a big dream or two. In an era where disengagement with politics is so widespread, the NDP seemed at risk of falling into a habit that other parties have suffered from: talking about political strategy instead of human aspiration.

Link to this post 0 Comments

Monday, March 19, 2012 10:44 AM EDT

Herky-jerky budget talk raises doubts about Tory discipline

The weeks that lead up a budget are prime time for governments to telegraph intentions, soften up targets, make people expect bad things and deliver better.

The minute a budget it tabled, most of what voters hear are complaints about shortcomings. That’s just life in a democracy, not some dastardly conspiracy.

To offset this phenomenon, the Harper government (certainly not the first to do so) has in the past spent millions to tout its initiatives, and it is gilding its lilies again this spring. For a government pushing a culture shift in spending, this may come off as more than a bit audacious once the budget is tabled. If there was risk of a backlash in the past, the risk is higher now.

Watching Ottawa use paid advertising to promote the last few budgets might have been easier for Canadians to accept, given the unusual circumstances. One point of these budgets was to reassure people the sky was not falling, in order to help ensure that it wouldn’t fall. You could make a case that in the midst of unprecedented anxiety, the ad campaigns were designed to help shore up faltering confidence, and in so doing help make stimulus spending more efficient. (I’m not saying it's a strong case, just that a case could be made then – and today maybe not so much.)

The incongruity of a multi-million-dollar ad campaign to tout the merits of the 2012 budget is just part of what is puzzling about Ottawa’s economic message right now. The Finance and Canada Revenue Agency ads focus on jobs, growth and tax cuts, while Ottawa has made it clear for months this budget will be about spending cuts and fiscal correction.

If there are questions about the paid media campaign, the government’s “earned media” strategy is also perplexing. Earned media in this context is the free publicity governments get in the run up to the budget when they hint at what they are planning to do, in an effort to set expectations they can then meet or exceed. News media, industry, and a wide array of non-governmental organizations are always hoping to better anticipate what government will do. And so they tend to hang on every hint divulged.

For a government as disciplined as this one has been about communications, this pre-budget season seems kind of herky-jerky. If there’s a script, I’m not sure all the key players are reading from it.

The biggest mystery is how draconian the budget will be. For a long time the government seemed to be telegraphing that it was going to be one of the toughest plans ever seen. A necessary correction, time for the country to accept the hangover. DNA evidence of this government's true conservatism for those who doubted it.

But more recently, these signals have softened quite a bit. Ottawa's revenues are up by $7-billion, spending is down by $3-billion, the fiscal situation is looking brighter, and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is saying we don't need draconian cuts. If it turns out to be a moderate budget, most voters won’t be surprised. Only one of every two people are expecting a bad-news budget, and even then their definition of bad news is a moderate one: Most don’t believe that major cuts to social programs including public pensions are needed. If it truly is Budgetgeddon, lots of voters will be taken aback.

Budget making is one of the key tests of the strategic and communications skills of any government. It's hard not to wonder if the Harper government is, ironically, finding it was easier to do in the middle of an economic crisis and with the risk of an election at any moment.

Link to this post 0 Comments

Sunday, March 4, 2012 10:58 AM EST

Lacking ‘hand’ in robo-call debate, Tories ought to try humility

Despite the bluster, the best minds inside the Conservative tent are likely having robo-conniptions. A tough lot, they’ve stared down trouble successfully many times. But this could become their toughest challenge yet.

The Conservatives came to office as the party of rectitude, and respect for the average hockey mom and dad. They had what Jerry Seinfeld used to call “hand.” Their pitch to voters, paraphrased, went something like this: “Grits tried to steal your money, we won’t. We won’t mollycoddle criminals, consort with separatists or conspire with socialists. We’ll cut the GST you hate and throw in a tax break for your kid’s hockey equipment. We are your kind of people.”

It was an all-out effort to make conservatism more relevant to middle class, mainstream Canada. And it worked, to a point.

As they struggle to contain the robo-call mess, some Conservatives appear tempted to just ride the high horse and remind everyone “we won the election, and you all lost.” Tempting it may be, but it’s like drinking a bottle of whisky to dull the pain of a broken leg. It won’t re-set the leg – and a hangover is guaranteed.

Regardless of where the facts ultimately take this story, it’s hard not to think the Conservatives would be better off sticking with a more humble line.

It might all be the work of a rogue campaign zealot. Heaven knows, every party has workers with enthusiasm surpluses and ethics deficits. But now, even the Conservative Party of Canada is unsure that’s what happened. As good as it is to take folks at their word, do Canadians who are following this story buy that the government doesn’t know anything about what really happened?

Until we know more, it’s worth pondering what the real risk is for the Conservatives if this proves to be something more than a solitary Pierre Poutine? Here’s my take.

Maybe it’s because I’ve spent 25 years in the polling business, but I can’t get too worked up that lots of calls were made to lots of people. That annoys a lot of people (so I’ve been told), but it’s not a hanging offence – thank goodness.

Tracing the evidence of who bought calls from what company is important work, essential to getting to the truth of this matter. But in the end, if anything will stick in the minds of voters, it’s not robots or the number of calls they made or in what country the calls originated. It’s what the calls were intended to do.

If – underline if – the allegations prove out, experts will talk about how this is an affront to democracy, and use $5 terms like “voter suppression.” But that’s not what it will be called in your local Tim Hortons.

To those non-partisans who decided to trust the Conservatives in 2006, and grew in number through 2011, this would feel like a slap in the face. Calling folks to mislead them about where to vote is treating people like rubes. It’s playing them for fools – for amusement or advantage or both. It’s a line the Conservatives most definitely will not want to cross.

So if they truly don’t know what happened here, the blustery counterattack strategy is very high risk. If the facts eventually require a climb down, why guarantee that doing so will be even more embarrassing? It’s already clear that something untoward happened, at least in one riding, meaning the Conservatives do not have any “hand” in this debate. But their answers in the House pretend otherwise.

So far, humility is the path less travelled by the Conservatives on this issue. It's a route they may be wise to consider.

Link to this post 0 Comments

Sunday, February 12, 2012 8:46 AM EST

Mulcair livens up NDP race with challenge to party faithful

The NDP leadership race is entering its last laps and the stakes are rising. Not just because the time for candidates to break away from the pack and develop a lead is getting shorter.

No, an arguably bigger threat for New Democrats is the pretty comprehensive evidence that they have been fading from public view while the Liberal Party brand and its steward Bob Rae are reconnecting with larger numbers of mainstream, centrist voters – especially in central Canada. The relevance of the NDP is not a given, despite its Official Opposition status.

Since the beginning of the leadership race, it has been remarkable for two things. First is the relative gentility of the NDP candidates towards one another. Hard to fault that, but also makes it harder for most people to pay attention if they don’t see some fire, conviction, a test of wills and personalities. It doesn’t have to be UFC, but boxing with headgear, maybe?

But the other thing that has been striking about the race is how (ironically) it resembles the Republican nomination race in the United States: It’s relentlessly about the base. Try to tune in, and if you’re not a party member, chances are you’ll tune out quickly. It's reminiscent of those soap operas that ran on daytime TV for decades: For those who know the characters and enjoy plotlines that keep repeating themselves, it’s must-see TV. For everyone else, not so much.

Of course, it’s highly logical that leadership candidates are trying to win the hearts of card-carrying members. But just like the Republican candidates down south, it’s easy to get the impression a candidate who tries to win voters outside the tent might be frowned upon by the rank and file, and find themselves living under a cloud of suspicion.

For Mitt Romney this week to declare his bona fides as a “severely conservative” politician (at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington) was inevitable, but also sort of ridiculous. The Republicans will face a talented opponent with a possibly recovering economy in the fall: Would it be so bad to choose the fellow who seems appealing to people outside the party tent?

So back to the NDP race. Reading about Thomas Mulcair’s meeting with the Toronto Star editorial board, I couldn’t help but wonder if something different may be starting to happen here.

That Mulcair said edgy, brash things was not shocking. That the challenges he threw down were mostly aimed at the feet of NDP members was what caught my attention.

He talked about fatigue with ‘50s boiler plate language of social democracy and admitted to meeting party members who fear the implications of winning power, believing it would be the result of an apocalyptic soul-selling. He challenged the orthodoxy of styling the NDP as the champion of “ordinary people,” suggesting that good progressive ideas will be supported by more voters if they are not always freighted with class warfare branding.

On NAFTA, Mulcair dismissed the idea of scrapping the deal, said the oil sands shouldn’t be shut down, and that tax increases would only be considered as a last resort in a government he would run.

I’m not suggesting his positions would win broad acceptance; there are lots of aspects of them that would still give pause to centrist voters. But I do think his themes are challenging to NDP voters: He’s leaving little doubt that if they want to go the next step as a party and seriously try to win an election, that’s what he wants to do as well. Inferentially, he’s asking them to consider if the same can be said for his opponents.

No doubt, in speaking out this way, Mulcair is taking a gamble in terms of the internal dynamics of this leadership race. But to borrow a term from René Lévesque, it may well be a beau risque for him – and an interesting argument for his party to consider.

Link to this post 0 Comments

Sunday, January 29, 2012 4:54 PM EST

Harper’s Davos speech puts Canada on the path to substantive politics

For much of Stephen Harper’s time in office, his critics have charged that almost every move he made was calculated to win short-term electoral advantage. To some, he looked like a man without a long-term plan, the exact opposite of what they had expected.

With his speech in Davos, PMSH 2.0 has emerged. His declaration that Canada needs to overhaul its pension approach is clearly not borne of a zeal to win more votes. No, this is one of those things that – in theory anyway– people say they want politicians to do. Take a tough issue, find a solution you believe in and press ahead, make your case. The PM is putting political capital on the line for ideas he believes in. He undoubtedly knows there is more political risk than reward in what he is doing.

The substance that Mr. Harper proposes will be debated at length as details emerge; my comments are only about political communications.

Mr. Harper's overarching message was that the developed world has been living high on the hog, is out of shape and needs to go to boot camp. And not just a two-week boot camp, more like a 20-year one. The assertion that we have become complacent and take prosperity for granted may have a ring of truth for many people. They might agree that we need to improve our economic fitness. But they may be thinking about walking a bit more and eating a bit less – not about years of endurance and making do. There’s a reason why fitness infomercials spend so much time telling us that making progress will be easier than we think: it’s what makes us pick up the phone.

The Davos speech included a few passages that might make the average Canadian feel proud of what has been built in this country. But not many. There was a fair bit of “every silver lining has a dark cloud,” and Mr. Harper draws more on the fear of going over a cliff than the promise of reaching new heights. It’s often true that unless people are fearful of the consequences of doing nothing, nothing can change. But getting people to accept tough change in a democracy often requires more than explaining why not doing so will be awful. Attention spans are getting shorter, especially for bad news. Finding the right blend of worry and optimism is tricky, but essential.

In the hands of his opponents, the PM's pitch can be recast to sound like: things are pretty good in Canada, but the rest of the world has made a bunch of mistakes, and now Canadians are not going to be able to retire as early or as comfortably as they had dreamed. To say this is politically vulnerable would be an understatement. The Maginot line had a better chance of holding back its enemies.

If they are going to win this debate (not just pass a law sometime during this term), the Conservatives will likely need to paint a brighter picture of the future. Canadians may need to see the “after” shot: what our life looks like when boot camp is over. The Davos speech more or less described success as survival.

Finally, it’s risky to talk about changing pension entitlements without talking about protection and care for the most vulnerable. Many Canadians have come to expect they will be on their own when it comes to planning for their retirement. But the instinct to want to protect our poorer older citizens remains very powerful in Canada. It’s easy to imagine centre and left voters coalescing around an alternative approach that is almost as fiscally cautious, but imbued with the desire to ensure our older citizens live in dignity.

Many will take issue with lots of the ideas in Mr. Harper’s speech in Davos. But after years of wishing that Canadian politics would be about important issues, even those who disagree with him should welcome the fact that he is laying out a substantive path, with a focus on the long term, not next month’s poll. And that we are launched into a debate that will challenge our political leaders to make their best case, on subjects that matter.

Link to this post 0 Comments