Election 2015

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from his Blog, is uber-Liberal Warren Kinsella's prediction for 2015:

http://warrenkinsella.com/2012/12/harper-will-win-in-2015/

HARPER WILL WIN IN 2015

December 17th, 2012

…that’s what I’ve been saying to folks across Canada since the release of Fight The Right, a few weeks ago.  It’s the incontrovertible reality: conservatives winning majorities in a country where the majority are progressive.  They do that because the progressive vote is split.

Harper’s vote is slipping and shrinking, but it still doesn’t matter.  As long as progressives – Liberals, New Democrats, Greens – continue to fight amongst themselves, Stephen Harper will continue to benefit.  You may not like it, you may not approve, but that’s the way it is.  It’s math.

Graves, here, with whom Bricker and others agree this morning:

The Conservative party may well benefit from a perfect progressive storm of vote-splitting and a futile rise in Green party votes resulting in few or no seats — as in 2008, when almost 7 per cent support for the Greens still failed to produce a single seat. The slightly invigorated Liberal party and the slightly diminished NDP will now saw off about 50 per cent of voters and the lion’s share of the progressive vote. A even more popular Green Party is still far away from levels where their popularity can translate into seats under the first-past-the-post system. So it may well be the case that a relatively stagnant and diminished Conservative party is in position to post another majority with even lower numbers than they had going into 2011.

The Graves would be pollster Frank Graves and the highlighted bit was from an iPolitics article he wrote. Darrell Bricker is CEO of Ipsos Reid Public Affairs.

 

[a_majoor]

Won't stop the NDP from trying, however. I doubt most people will believe that Thomas Mulcair or the NDP will change their spots, but this sort of talk could alienate hard core Dippers while attracting some more support from Liberal voters:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/16/mulcair-using-conservative-language-as-he-attempts-to-sell-ndps-economic-credentials/

Mulcair using conservative language as he attempts to sell NDP’s economic credentials

Joan Bryden, Canadian Press | Dec 16, 2012 1:05 PM ET
More from Canadian Press

Tom Mulcair boasts that he often sounds more like a conservative than Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

It may seem an odd thing for the leader of a social democratic party to brag about.

But for the NDP leader, it’s part of his mission to prove to Canadians that New Democrats aren’t the wild-eyed, reckless taxers and spenders of lore.

Indeed, he maintains that’s a more apt description of Harper’s Conservatives, whom he accuses of racking up a huge environmental, economic and social debt that future generations will have to pay off.

“What’s a paradox … is that these are essentially conservative themes that I’m evoking in the sense that it would be very conservative to say, ‘Don’t look for a handout, be self-reliant, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, all that sort of stuff,” Mulcair said in a year-end interview with The Canadian Press.

“But what the Conservatives are doing is living off the credit card of our grandchildren … and I think that’s wrong.”
Related

    Prime Minister Stephen Harper tells NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair to ‘serenity now!’ after heated Question Period
    John Ivison: Choosing F-35s now would only increase charges of Conservative ‘incompetence’
    Andrew Coyne: Stephen Harper compromises on Nexen and everyone gets half a baby

Mulcair still emphasizes traditional NDP issues: sustainable development and the need to reduce social inequalities. But he’s framing them in conservative language, essentially arguing that intergenerational equity requires the current generation to carry its own weight.

“When we use a theme like that, the wording is almost conservative, right?” he said.

“But the Conservatives are the ones who are not following it. We’re the ones who are saying be prudent public administrators and they’re the ones saying, ‘We’re going to sole source a $40-billion (stealth fighter jet) contract, we won’t even go to the lowest bidder.’”

Mulcair’s terminology reflects a frank political calculation that New Democrats must overcome lingering doubts about their economic management skills if they hope to realize their dream of forming government after the next election.

“We have to reach out beyond our traditional base,” Mulcair said, explaining his strategy.

“If we want to form a government, we’ve got to, of course, convince our base that we can deliver on what have been long-standing policies and views. But we’ve also got to make Canadians understand that we’re confident about our ability to deliver good, competent public administration.

“We’re asking Canadians in the next election to do something they’ve never done before, which is to give the NDP the keys to the store, to say, ‘Okay, we’re going to trust you to run a very complex economy, a very complex public administration.”

To that end, Mulcair has focused heavily on economic issues since taking the NDP helm last March. He estimated about 60 per cent of his interventions in question period each day have been devoted to the economy and jobs.

He’s also adopted a more open posture on trade, supporting the only free trade deal _ with Jordan _ that’s come up for ratification since he succeeded the late Jack Layton and urging expedited negotiations with Japan.

“So those are themes that we maybe didn’t spend as much time on in the past as we do now and that’s probably … one of the biggest changes” under his leadership, he said.

    We’ve also got to make Canadians understand that we’re confident about our ability to deliver good, competent public administration

The Conservatives, no slouches at framing their political rivals, have fought back by doubling down on charges that Mulcair is a typical anti-business, anti-trade, tax-and-spend socialist.

Tory backbenchers use their daily statements preceding question period to relentlessly hammer away at the NDP’s proposed cap and trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, labelling it a ruinous, $21-billion carbon “tax on everything” that would spoil Canadians’ enjoyment of pretty much everything, including Halloween’en and Christmas.

Mulcair pointed out that Harper himself advocated a cap and trade system during the 2008 election, which the NDP leader calculates would have been more than twice as onerous as the one now championed by his party. For the Tories to now demonize the NDP plan as a tax on everything is “so disingenuous, it borders on foolish,” he scoffed.

Mulcair predicted that the carbon tax attacks will backfire on the Conservatives.

“When they stand someone in the House to repeat the word carbon tax 27 times in a shrill voice, I think they’re ridiculing themselves,” he said.

“It reflects rather badly on them because it shows they’re unable to have the substantive debate and, at some point, the average Canadian, being quite reasonable about these things, says, ‘Well, why are they refusing to even discuss this?’”

Chris Wattie / Reuters NDP leader Thomas Mulcair questioned the ability of Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz to handle a growing tainted meat scandal on Monday, pointing out it was the same minister in charge when a 2008 listeriosis outbreak killed more than 20 people and made dozens sick.

The Tories have bolstered their anti-trade charges by pouncing on Mulcair’s opposition to a proposed foreign investment agreement with China and to the takeover of Nexen Inc. by China’s state-owned oil company.

But Mulcair makes no apologies in either front. He pointed out that Harper himself approved the Nexen deal only grudgingly and stressed any similar takeovers in future would be approved only under “exceptional circumstances.”

As for the investment treaty, he said: “When you’re dealing with a country that doesn’t have the rule of law, that has, for all intents and purposes, no environmental norms … and very few labour rights, you have to be very careful.”

In recent days, the Tories have also begun poking at what they evidently perceive as another NDP weak spot: Mulcair’s alleged volcanic temper. Mulcair declined to discuss his role in a recent verbal dust-up with the government’s House leader, Peter Van Loan.

The Tories allege that Mulcair blew his top and swore at Van Loan, although video shows Van Loan initiated the contretemps, storming across the centre aisle in the Commons to confront Mulcair. Van Loan has apologized for using inappropriate language and called on Mulcair to do the same.

For the most part, however, Mulcair has not let any of the Tory attacks get under his skin; he’s largely ignored them and stuck doggedly to his own agenda.

“You know, the worst signal that we could have ever sent them would be that threats could intimidate us. And I can guarantee you they’ve never had that signal from us,” he said.

“They know that they’re facing a very tough and structured official Opposition … We won’t back down.”

Mulcair would not comment directly on the Liberal leadership contest but professed no concern about polls suggesting leadership front-runner Justin Trudeau could cut deeply into the NDP’s support, particularly its newfound base in Quebec.

Novice New Democrat MPs from the province have settled in and started putting down roots, he said, boldly predicting: “We’re going to do even better in the next election.”

Moreover, Mulcair positioned himself as the champion of national unity, a title Liberals used to claim. He pointed out he’s the only federal leader who actually fought in the trenches in both the 1980 and 1995 referendums on Quebec independence.

“There’s nobody in that House who can claim to have fought as hard as I did in those referenda. While Stephen Harper was musing darkly on his couch, watching the news and talking about building firewalls (around Alberta), I was out there trying to build bridges.”

Mulcair defended the NDP’s controversial Sherbrooke Declaration _ which stipulates that a New Democrat government would consider a bare majority referendum vote sufficient to trigger negotiations on Quebec secession — as part of that bridge-building effort.

However, he has added some conditions that aren’t spelled out in Sherbrooke, namely that a 50 per cent plus one vote would be recognized only if the referendum question was clear and there were no irregularities in the vote.

“Once all the subjective elements are clear — there’s been no fraud, there’s been no cheating on the spending, there’s been a clear question — well then, the side that wins the most votes, wins. And that’s all that means,” he said.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It is a strange conceit Kinsella has that all Liberals are automatically "progressives", or that it is not possible for any Conservative to be "progressive".  There is nothing more conservative I have observed in the last few years than a progressive who finally gets his way: "the debate is over".

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is an insightful column by Lawrence Martin:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/will-harper-join-the-elite-club-of-long-serving-pms/article7340001/

Will Harper join the elite club of long-serving PMs?

LAWRENCE MARTIN
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Jan. 15 2013

Stephen Harper holds a distinction no other prime minister can claim: No other PM has improved as much in successive elections as he and his Conservative Party.

After coming to office, most prime ministers see their seat numbers fall in subsequent campaigns. In his three victories, Mr. Harper has substantially improved his seat count each time. The only other prime minister to achieve this over three campaigns was Wilfrid Laurier in the elections of 1896, 1900 and 1904. His seat totals went from 117 to 128 to 137. But Mr. Harper’s increases have been more impressive. He rose from 124 in 2006 to 143 in 2008 to 166 in 2011.

Next week marks the seventh anniversary of his arrival in power and the odds are there will be quite a few more of them. Canadians have a habit of according their prime ministers long incumbencies. Four prime ministers – John A. Macdonald, Laurier, Mackenzie King and Pierre Trudeau – served more than 15 years. Several others served eight years or more: Robert Borden, Louis St. Laurent, Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien.

With still plenty of time in his current term, Mr. Harper will join the group of long-time tenants and it’s even possible he will one day make the 15-year club. Opposition party members will quietly tell you that without amalgamation or a co-operation deal of some kind among progressive parties, the chances of unseating the Conservatives are small. Reducing them to a minority is well possible, they feel, but not throwing them out.

The key to longevity of our long-lasting leaders is to have circumstances beyond their control work in their favour. Mackenzie King lost two elections on the 1920s, but was saved by the Great Depression that sunk the Conservatives and ushered him back to power. A defeated and retired Pierre Trudeau was resurrected by the freak accident of the Tories self-destructing shortly after coming to power in 1979. Jean Chrétien had the good fortune of seeing his opposition divide itself into little pieces courtesy of the 1993 election. Stephen Harper was handed the sponsorship scandal, weak opposition leaders and so much vote-splitting on the left that, like Mr. Chrétien, winning was made easier.

The skills of all these leaders should not be underestimated. But so much, here and everywhere in politics, is a matter of chance. If it had been Mitt Romney who got a momentum-turner late in the U.S. presidential campaign instead of the one given Barack Obama by Hurricane Sandy, the outcome might well have been different. In Antony Beevor’s new book, The Second World War, he notes how Winston Churchill was dancing in the streets at the news of Pearl Harbor – the stroke of fortune for him that brought the United States full bore into the war. Without that and the other stroke, Hitler’s force-depleting obsession with destroying the Soviet Union, how much of a hero would Winnie have become?

More than by his decisions, good or bad, Mr. Harper’s future will likely be determined by whether Providence continues to pivot in his favour. Currently, the country’s political dynamic sets up splendidly for him. He can, strange as it seems, do poorly and still win. In the past year or more, he has dropped five or six points in the polls. The opposition parties, by contrast, have all had good years. The New Democrats elected a strong leader in Thomas Mulcair and maintained the new-found strength they gained in the 2011 election. Bob Rae kept the Liberals afloat and Justin Trudeau has set their hopes ablaze. The Bloc Québécois got back on its feet in 2011. The Greens showed they aren’t going away.

Normally such developments would be a source of worry to the incumbent. But Mr. Harper finds himself relatively unthreatened. His opponents are dividing up the vote among themselves all the more. It is by way of these kinds of twists of fate that members of our club of longest-serving prime ministers are made.

This is, of course, a thinly veiled call to "unite the left," but I think, as Lawrence Martin suggests, that's a pipe dream, for now anyway, and Prime Minister Harper counts on the poorly named progressives* to battle, tooth and claw, in 2015 and again in 2019, for the right to sit across the aisle from the Conservative government benches.


-----
* They are, actually, a sort of conservative movement - they want anything but real progress, they want to turn the clocks back to a time when it appeared that we could afford an ever expanding welfare state.

 

[ModlrMike]

I think Mr Martin also over estimates the strength of NDP support in Quebec. I predict that there will be significant buyer's remorse and we'll see the BQ return more members to the house. Will this mean the NDP is no longer the opposition? Perhaps, perhaps not. As many of us have said, the task for the Liberals should be to first gain Stornoway, and then 24 Sussex. That being said, they have developed a knack for shooting themselves in the foot in recent campaigns.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It seems to me that the opposition parties have a common problem: opposing Prime Minister Harper's every move while, simultaneously, differentiating themselves, each from the other three. This will be easiest for the Greens and the (resurrected) BQ because:

    1. They are near single issue movements, rather than being credible national parties; and

    2. They have no hope of governing so they have real need to make sense.

But life is much, much harder for the Liberals and NDP. Each is a national party and each does have a legitimate shot at running the country. But: before either can form a government it must unseat the other. Mr. Mulcair must oppose Stephen Harper and his Conservatives and, equally, oppose the next Liberal leader and his party, on every issue, and vice versa for the Liberals.

Quebec and Ontario will be the main battlegrounds. My guess, and that's all it is, is that the BQ will benefit most of the Liberal vs NDP battles in Quebec and the Conservatives will be able to exploit Liberal vs NDP fights in Ontario. We could see In a 338 seat HoC) something like this

BQ                -  25
Conservatives - 175
Greens          -    3
Liberals          -    66
NDP              -    66
Others          -      3

 

[Ra]

I think Mr Martin also over estimates the strength of NDP support in Quebec. I predict that there will be significant buyer's remorse and we'll see the BQ return more members to the house. Will this mean the NDP is no longer the opposition? Perhaps, perhaps not. As many of us have said, the task for the Liberals should be to first gain Stornoway, and then 24 Sussex. That being said, they have developed a knack for shooting themselves in the foot in recent campaigns.

Muclair is not popular like Layton was but he's still well liked here (at least by the medias). The Bloc doesn't have a strong leadership and I don't see who could lead them to a "win". Plus I've heard that the NPD has been doing a good job locally. Trudeau is the real treat for them so far, but he's still green, so like you said he's mistakes prone.

 

[Edward Campbell]

More prognostications, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post, on the shape of (political) things come:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/22/michael-den-tandt-the-trend-is-the-friend-for-conservative-fortunes/

The trend is the friend for Conservative fortunes

Michael Den Tandt

Jan 22, 2013

Seven-year-itch? It would seem so. But it ain’t so.

Everywhere one turns these days, even on conservative talk radio in Alberta, there’s withering criticism of the Harper government. Either they’ve lost their way and abandoned their founding principles; or they’ve disastrously torqued the country into a shape alien to its traditions, using anti-democratic omnibus bills that sideswipe and denigrate the traditional powers of the House of Commons. The robocalls scandal has made them look power-hungry and dishonest; the F-35 affair, dishonest and incompetent.

Indeed, seven years to the day after the Harper-led Conservative Party of Canada won a razor-thin minority of 124 seats on January 23, 2006, with just over 36 per cent of the popular vote, it begins to look more like a rash than an itch. But looks can be deceiving. In this case, counterintuitive though it may sound given the foregoing, they most definitely are.

To understand why, we need only consider where the Conservatives are strong, and where they are weak; and where the Liberals and New Democrats are strong, and weak. In a nutshell, the Tories, even after all their stumbles and bungles, still have a lock on Main Street. And the opposition, say what they will about “responsible, competent public administration” (NDP) or “restoring the middle class,” (Liberals) are battling over silver, not gold, and that mainly in Quebec.

Consider a series of recent polls by Ipsos – apparently disjointed, but in fact instructive. Nearly half the electorate, according to surveys released at the beginning of January, believe the New Democrats are ready to form government. Promising for them, surely? Except that 56 per cent also believe the Liberals will eventually reclaim power, under the leader about to be selected at the party’s April convention. And 45 per cent approve of Stephen Harper’s performance as prime minister – off just three points from last year. Roughly the same percentage, 44 per cent, think the current majority government is “working well,” Ipsos reports.

So in effect these polls are a wash – a mishmash, demonstrating nothing but that Canadians remain conflicted and divided about who they’d prefer to run the country. But that’s precisely the point: The mishmash represents the status quo. The centre is holding. Which is fundamentally good news for the Conservatives, because these are the very underlying conditions that set the stage for their 2011 majority win.

The trend becomes more readily apparent when we examine public opinion data beyond politics, per se. Two-thirds of Canadians, 65 per cent, are optimistic about the direction of the economy in 2013, Ipsos reported in December. And a clear majority, upwards of 60 per cent, think Canada will be economically better off in 2017, the year of the national sesquicentennial, than we are today, or were on the occasion of the country’s 100th birthday, in 1967.

However many urbane, university-educated, middle-class Canadians may grumble about “the dictator Stephen Harper” on their Facebook walls, this does not suggest any kind of groundswell for change. Rather it suggests an understated satisfaction with the country’s economic direction. Since that is the Conservative Alpha and Omega, the entirety of its brand, the party cannot help but benefit electorally.

In other words: It’s not so much that Canadians particularly like these Conservatives. We really don’t, a lot of the time. But a mostly silent majority, after due consideration of the broad-based economic reforms first flagged by Harper in Davos early last year, considers them to be more or less sensible. Boosting the age of eligibility for old age security by two years, rationalizing the immigration and refugee system and toughening up employment insurance have not struck a majority of Canadians as radical. Indeed, these are moves, as I have said before, that any John Manley or Frank McKenna-led “blue” Liberal government could easily have made.

The exceptions are the environment, where polls consistently show the Conservatives lagging Canadians’ expectations, and democratic governance, where their record has been appalling. But here events have conspired to nudge them back towards safer ground. Aboriginal activism requires a moderate, measured response from Ottawa on land claims and the environment, without which much planned northern resource development cannot proceed. And U.S. President Barack Obama’s explicit promise to tackle climate change in his second term will force a corresponding shift in Ottawa, regardless of  Conservative rhetoric about the evils of carbon taxes.

What it means, it seems to me, is that failing a decisive move back towards free-market libertarianism by the Liberals, or a clear, unmistakable reversal from the NDP indicating they intend to support, rather than impede Canada’s resource economy, the opposition parties are battling over the same centre-left scrub that cost them the ball game in 2011. Whereas the Conservatives are comfortably straddling the center-right – precisely where they need to be to win, again, in 2015.

Twitter.com/mdentandt

National Post[color]

But: there is no room for complacency on Prime Minister Harper's part. Thomas Mulcair is a formidable opponent and Justin Trudeau displays a knack for connecting with people ... and a week is a long time in politics and we have 135 or so "long times" before the 2015 election.

 

[a_majoor]

The NDP is maturing as a political party, but it remains to be seen if this translates into votes (NDP supporters must be getting a knot in their shorts as Thomas Mulcair quietly ignores their pet causes):

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/25/chris-selley-from-attawapiskat-to-mali-an-ndp-identity-crisis-on-display/

Chris Selley: From Attawapiskat to Mali, an NDP identity crisis on display

Chris Selley | Jan 25, 2013 12:01 AM ET | Last Updated: Jan 24, 2013 5:46 PM ET
More from Chris Selley | @cselley
.
Look at Tom Mulcair go. The obvious choice to continue Jack Layton’s march of the New Democrats toward the safe, professional political centre is doing just that.

Idle No More? Not for Mr. Mulcair. Time was, New Democrats would have waited in line behind their leader to visit with hunger-striking Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence during her hunger strike. Nineteen of their MPs did pop by Victoria Island. But Mr. Mulcair remained very noticeably absent, and it’s not hard to understand why. Few had even heard of Chief Spence before she stopped eating. Who knew what skeletons, or damning audits, might be found in her closets?

Mr. Mulcair engaged Chief Spence, only insofar as he called on Stephen Harper to “act swiftly to avoid a personal tragedy,” and then a month later to suggest she eat something. On Thursday Mr. Mulcair’s office released a statement on “building a new relationship with aboriginal peoples of Canada” that did not even mention Chief Spence. Out for a penny, out for a pound.

Especially as a third party, the Liberals can occasionally latch on to an activist cause, knowing it will soon dissolve back into the mush. It is not so easy for ideological parties. One widely read New Democrat blogger this week pronounced himself “embarrassed and ashamed” at Mr. Mulcair’s divestment, reflecting the divide between the New Democrats’ ideological wing (which is itself hardly homogenous) and its pragmatic wing.

It is a tricky balance for Mr. Mulcair. The Conservatives govern in opposition to much of what they previously claimed to believe, but at least Stephen Harper serves as head apostate. His own transformation is so grotesque as to suggest to his supporters that, surely, it must have been absolutely necessary. Mr. Mulcair, on the other hand, is taking his party to the place he’s always been.

Foreign policy is another potential fault line, and it has bigger ramifications for the country as a whole. Earlier in the week, the New Democrats pledged support to an extension of Canada’s modest contribution (one heavy-lift aircraft) to the French military operation in Mali. Canadian Press reports that this came at the price of having the Foreign Affairs Committee “monitor and debate Canada’s evolving role in the conflict” — which is good news. Foreign Affairs critic Paul Dewar warned that this consensus would not necessarily apply to a troop deployment.

The question is whether the NDP as official opposition, and under Mr. Mulcair’s leadership, can retain the vital skeptic role it played during Canada’s decade in Afghanistan. Even our single airplane grates against Mr. Harper’s professed intent to avoid “direct” involvement in Mali. It’s all too easy to see us gradually piling on more responsibilities in that country — which is fine, but only as long as it’s really what we want to do.

“Historically, we, the UN, NATO, etc., never had clear goals when intervening … sufficient resources were never assigned and an exit strategy was finalized as we were leaving,” retired Major-General Lewis Mackenzie wrote in The Globe and Mail this week. “In Canada’s case, we usually became involved when the pressure from our allies or the alliances to which we belong became both public and politically persuasive.

“This development, combined with increased media coverage, creates an obligation to contribute.”

That is not good enough, not after the Afghanistan debacle. The goal in Mali (if not the execution) seems straightforward: To wipe out as many al-Qaeda insurgents and their fellow travellers as possible. There is a case to make for Canada to be part of that, but not if the mission is in fact impossible; not if politicians are constantly shifting stated goals — we’re digging wells and building schools now! — to placate a war-weary population; not if we don’t take steps to ensure it’s not another decade-long stalemate.

The NDP is better positioned now to demand coherent answers than it was during the Afghanistan years. But the stakes are also higher. Such questions would expose them to the usual Conservative accusations of troop-hating and softness-on-terrorism. They might hurt their chances of supplanting the Liberals once and for all. Hopefully Mr. Mulcair won’t blindly “support the troops” as easily as he ignored Chief Spence.

National Post

 

[a_majoor]

Thomas Mulcair expounds on his version of Federalism. There are enough hints here that the NDP strategy for the 2015 election is to pander as much as possible to Quebec to hold its base, suggesting that the election really will be a cage match between the Liberals and the NDP (with a currently unknown amount of spoilage by the BQ). I have yet to see the party attempting to "push" beyond its Quebec bastion (although I might not be paying enough attention), while it may be possible that the gradual move towards the "center" could alienate enough true believers outside of Quebec for the NDP to end up with a wash:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/26/conrad-black-thomas-mulcair-promotes-an-odious-species-of-federalism/

Conrad Black: Thomas Mulcair promotes an odious species of ‘federalism’
Conrad Black | Jan 26, 2013 12:01 AM ET | Last Updated: Jan 26, 2013 10:34 AM ET
More from Conrad Black

NDP leader Thomas Mulcair spoke to University of Toronto political-science undergraduates earlier this month, and claimed to be uttering a largely non-partisan exhortation to his listeners to participate in the political process. The leader of the opposition said he was motivated by the fact that approximately 65% of Canadians between the ages of 18 and 25 did not vote in the last election. This theme was unexceptionable. But not so innocuous was his version of the political evolution of Quebec.

In his January 14 speech at the University of Toronto’s Convocation Hall, Mr. Mulcair started from the well-known NDP premise of the desirability of a statist, or highly dirigiste society. The more enthusiastic a person is for an interventionist and authoritarian state, the more likely that person is to favour relatively high taxes to pay for these interventions — with the resultant encroachment on individual liberties being represented as merely a reflection of collectively expressed political will. As for the fact that these interventions are usually done by executive order, under only generally enabling legislation, and are implemented by unelected and largely unaccountable officials — this is something that Mulcair left to his audience to discover as they progress down the great boulevard of life.

According to Mulcair, Canada’s Wheat Board — whose Western wheat and barley monopsony finally was ended after 77 years in 2012 as a superfluous and meddlesome impediment to agrarian prosperity — gave farmers “an even break,” and prevented the American phenomenon Mulcair claimed to perceive of “multi-nationals taking over more farms” (a figment of his frequently verdant imagination).

Mulcair also declared that “poor people don’t have access to health care without universality,” which is a complete falsehood: All advanced countries provide access to health care. Canada is the only one among them that has tried to ban large swathes of private medicine.

These are the usual liberties with the truth that assist those who desire — and particularly those who desire to direct and impose — big government. But more troubling in Mulcair’s case (and something that should be elaborated as a fundamental political issue by the other political parties) is his enthusiasm for Quebec government-mandated infringement on freedom of expression, in the cause of the cultural ambitions of French Quebecers.

In his pursuit of retention of the French nationalist vote in federal elections in Quebec that his predecessor, Jack Layton, wrested from the Bloc Québécois in the 2011 federal election, Mulcair made what amounts to a pre-emptive strike against the general federalist position of the Conservatives, Liberals and (insofar as they address the issue) the Greens, which is that French and English language rights should be assured throughout Canada.

In this area, Mulcair makes two false claims that are insidious and scandalously cynical. First, he credits the NDP with ending the artificial division of Quebec political allegiances along the issue of constitutional options. Second, he claims that cultural repression in Quebec is a buttress to federalism because it serves to ease French Quebec’s insecurities; and that, as a result, the NDP, while it panders to separatists, in fact is the true federalist party.

In service to the first claim, Mulcair makes the argument that both the sovereigntist PQ and Quebec’s federalist Liberal Party are broad-tent groupings of voters reflecting a wide ideological range between socialists and conservatives. This is rubbish: Both are left-of-centre parties, and the ideological difference that exists between them is fairly subtle, consisting chiefly of the PQ’s enthusiasm to turn the tax and culture screws harder on the non-French in order to accelerate the process of driving them out of Quebec (thereby making it easier to get a majority of Quebec referendum voters to lead a culturally cleansed province out of Canada). The Liberals are more restrained as almost al the non-french vote for them, and now provide most of their support.

What Mulcair dismisses as an “artificial axis of sovereignty or federalism” (as between the PQ and the Liberals) is in fact the evidently principal issue of Quebec public policy. Practically all Quebecers in both parties are addicted to the overweening state that Mulcair favours for ideological reasons, especially as the primarily English-speaking provinces of Canada are paying for much of it through transfer payments, a fact that Mulcair does not acknowledge (and cannot acknowledge without alienating the Quebec nationalists whose electoral boots he is so energetically and verbosely licking).

In regard to private schools that frustrate the Quebec government’s policy (under both parties) of forcing the children of immigrants to attend schools where French is the language of instruction (and not just an important part of the curriculum), Mr. Mulcair claims that such private education alternations are “not helpful” — by which he apparently means “not helpful to the suppression of other languages and of parental rights.”

In the same vein, the NDP leader pats himself on the head and back for declaring his support for the many official restrictions on the use of English and other languages in Quebec, such as on commercial signs. Such restrictions are, in fact completely unnecessary to the preservation of the French language in Quebec, and are odious to anyone with the slightest concern for freedom of expression that is otherwise regarded as one of the cornerstones of democratic civilization. That freedom was proclaimed and assented to by all democratic countries, including Canada, in the Atlantic Charter of 1941, and was what we successfully fought for in the Second World War.

Finally, Mulcair used his University of Toronto speech to claim that French Quebecers were “far more secure in 1980,” when the independence referendum was won 60/40 by the federalists, than in 1995, when it was a hair’s breadth margin; his point here being that securing maximum protections for the French language, and restrictions on other languages, is the best way to prevent the flourishing of separatist sentiment. But language conditions did not appreciably change in Quebec during the 15-year interregnum he describes.

The real reason most Quebecers are not interested in sovereignty now is because: (1) They are addicted to over $8-billion dollars of annual transfer payments, from elsewhere in Canada, which enable them to have a low birthrate, a white-collar service economy, and have almost all the trappings of an autonomous country; (2) They recognize that English-Canadians already have made a good faith effort at conciliation, and will make no more substantial concessions; (3) Another trick referendum question promising independence with the continued benefit of Confederation won’t fly; and (4) Any secession would be an economic and demographic catastrophe, leaving Quebec with Greek-level debt and several hundred thousand fewer taxpayers.

Thomas Mulcair is committing the hypocrisy of groveling to French Quebec racists, while claiming to be a successful federalist. He must not be allowed to get away with this monstrous canard. Stephen Harper and (presumably) Justin Trudeau must assure that he does not.

National Post

cbletter@gmail.com

 

[Edward Campbell]

And more on Mulcair versus the real NDP in this commentary which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/oh-those-poor-lost-ndp-sheep/article8158602/

Oh, those poor lost NDP sheep

CLIVE COCKING
The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Feb. 04 2013

The late great J.S. Woodsworth, M.J. Coldwell, Tommy Douglas and David Lewis must be writhing in their graves at the antics of today’s New Democratic Party.

These great Canadians led the way in establishing social democratic ideas as a key element in our politics. They did so leading a party – first the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation of Mr. Woodsworth and Mr. Coldwell, then its successor, the NDP of Mr. Douglas and Mr. Lewis – that consistently focused on achieving practical benefits to improve the lives of ordinary Canadians. These leaders and the early CCF-NDP played a key role in the struggle that won for Canadians such social benefits as unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, old-age pensions and medicare.

Sadly, today’s New Democrats – with more seats than ever in Parliament – look like poor lost sheep who have strayed from their forerunners’ distinguished tradition.

The NDP no longer knows what it stands for, what it should be fighting for or, indeed, what’s important. As a perfect example, NDP parliamentarians brought forward three trifling bills this week that testify to the party’s lack of priority – and lack of good sense.

First, they want new rules to supposedly make MPs behave better in the House of Commons. Second, they propose to replace the Clarity Act with one that would allow Quebec to secede with a simple majority vote of 50 per cent plus one in any future referendum. And third, they’re proposing legislation requiring all federal laws to be compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

These items don’t merit much discussion.

The Commons is not as uncivil as the NDP lets on, and any intemperate speakers seem easily squelched by the House Speaker. Besides, robust debate is vital to democracy, and there must always be room for ripostes such as that of Pierre Trudeau: “My honourable friend disagrees with me – I can hear his head shaking.”

A new Clarity Act isn’t on any agenda in Canada – other than among separatist zealots in Quebec. The proposal is a political ploy by NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair to appease his nationalist base in Quebec. But it’s folly because, by accepting a simple majority of valid votes, the new act could make secession easier.

The proposal to fully implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples may be a political sop to first nations, but it has dangerous implications for our system of government. It goes far beyond Canada’s constitutional and legal duty to consult first nations before new developments go ahead. Article 19 of the declaration requires states to consult and co-operate with indigenous peoples in order to obtain “their free, prior and informed consent” before implementing legislation that may affect them. But since they’re citizens – like everyone else – they’re affected by almost every piece of legislation passed by Parliament. Some lawyers say native Canadians could thus gain a broad veto; this could bring new resource developments to a standstill.

One hopes these loopy ideas will go nowhere. But what’s most dismaying is that the NDP is wasting its time and energy on this stuff.

The Conservative government is neglecting some serious problems that need strong advocacy from the opposition. A few that come to mind include protecting Parliament with a tougher attack on Conservative blockbuster budget bills; backing a comprehensive attack on chronic poverty; demanding a better tax deal for cities; campaigning for a balanced economic-environmental development regime; and fighting to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions through practical solutions, such as expanding urban transit.

Will we see NDP leadership on these issues? I’m not holding my breath. Much like their opposition colleagues – the equally lost Liberals – the New Democrats follow the polls these days and play to the crowd. They seem to think real leadership is for losers. But they might ask themselves why they’re always on the losing side of elections.

Clive Cocking is the Vancouver-based Western Canada correspondent for The Economist.

The problem for the NDP is that not enough Canadians share the ideals of J.S. Woodsworth, M.J. Coldwell, Tommy Douglas and David Lewis ~ some (not me) may have greatly admired their values and integrity (like putting pacifism ahead of the clearly obvious societal need to defeat Hitler's NAZIs) but not many shared their economic views: never enough to rise above third party status status ~ until now. When the NDP governed provinces they did so like Liberals (Rae in Ontario) or even Conservatives (Douglas in Saskatchewan), not like Woodsworth and Coldwell might have wished. Mulcair, like Jack Layton, may put politics ahead of principle, but it works for the Conservatives and Liberals, why not for the NDP?

 

[foresterab]

While this is a heavily slanted article (anti-fracking and wanting more marine parks) it does bring up some potential liabilities for Canada.  Especially in the fallout not so recently of the Gulf of Mexico BP oil spill and increased offshore drilling on Canada's Eastern and Northern Coast...

http://gold.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/GI/20130205/escenic_8248464/stocks/news/&back_url=yes

Environmental protections failing during resource boom, audits find
SHAWN McCARTHY
10:13 EST Tuesday, Feb 05, 2013
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


OTTAWA — Canada’s resource boom is outpacing Ottawa’s ability to safeguard important ecosystems from dangerous levels of pollution, the federal environment commissioner reported Tuesday.

In a series of audits, commissioner Scott Vaughan revealed a litany of shortcomings, including the failure to regulate toxic chemicals used by the oil industry and a lack of preparedness for major accidents, particularly off Canada’s East Coast.

Mr. Vaughan detailed Ottawa’s hands-off approach to hydraulic fracturing – a rapidly-growing and controversial oil industry practice in which companies inject chemically-laced water deep underground to extract natural gas and oil.

His report noted the resource boom brings risks as well as opportunities.

“Given the central role of natural resources in the Canadian economy, it is critical that environmental protection keeps pace with economic development, Mr. Vaughan said in a statement Tuesday.

“I am concerned by the gaps we found in the way federal programs related to natural resources are managed.”

At the same time, Ottawa continues to subsidize the oil industry, though the level of support is declining, the auditor reported.

Over the past four years, the government has spent more than $500-million in direct subsidies, primarily for research and development. It has also given $1.47-billion in tax breaks, mainly in the form of accelerated write-offs for oil sands producers – though that program is being phased out.

Mr. Vaughan criticized Ottawa’s failure to establish more marine protected areas even as offshore resource development proceeds, including proposals for a massive expansion of oil tanker traffic in Canadian coastal waters.

The auditors found serious shortcomings in the preparedness of the federal government and the federal-provincial regulator for a major spill off Newfoundland and Labrador, where companies are drilling to depths several kilometres beneath the ocean floor.

Last week, Newfoundland’s provincial energy company, Nalcor, identified four new sedimentary basins in the ice-infested waters of the Labrador Sea as prime spots for further exploratory drilling.

But Mr. Vaughan said regulators are unprepared for a spill like the one that blackened the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, killing marine life and contaminating habitat.

While the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board has done a good job managing day-to-day environmental concerns, it and the federal government “need to do more to prepare for a major oil spill,” the report said.

The auditors said the board’s emergency response plan is “missing some key elements” – including lack of formal arrangements for spill response equipment – and suffers from poor co-ordination with federal departments.

At the same time, the report warned of serious shortcomings in Ottawa’s liability regime for offshore oil exploration, maritime tanker traffic and nuclear plants. In most cases, the liability limits faced by operators have not been raised in decades, leaving taxpayers’ on the hook in the event of a major accident.

In the offshore, for example, companies enjoy a cap on their liability of $40-million in the North and $30-million off the East Coast unless negligence is proven.

Critics argue the liability limits represent a de facto subsidy for energy companies. Ottawa is currently reviewing that system and plans to introduce higher caps – in the “billions of dollars” according to industry sources – this spring.

Mr. Vaughan also reviewed Environment Canada’s response to concerns that the oil industry’s growing reliance on hydraulic fracturing – or fracking as it’s called in the industry – poses a threat to Canadians’ health.

Oil companies are relying on fracking to unlock shale gas deposits in northeastern British Columbia and Alberta, and are eyeing both Quebec and New Brunswick as promising locations for shale gas development. As well, drillers are now using hydraulic fracturing to unlock “tight” oil deposits in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

But while Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers has published voluntary guidelines on identifying chemicals used, Ottawa does not require the release of the information. The commissioner noted that the oil and gas companies are exempted from reporting under the National Pollutant Release Inventory on the precise chemicals they use in fracking.

“A complete list of substances used in Canada is not known,” the report said.

Environment Canada has undertaken a voluntary survey of companies engaged in hydraulic fracturing, asking them what substances they use. But officials told the auditors that the government is studying the potential health and environmental impacts of fracking and will determine a course of action based on that work.




While I work in the Forest industry a large part of my job is ensuring regulations are followed...and when things boom good luck finding staff.  Alberta currently does not graduate enough forestry students to replace the vacancies in the provincial government let alone forest industry/consultants/utility company/oil and gas company employees...and also has to compete against the surrounding provinces/territories for the people.  And when the private sector is offering significant (currently ~4x the annual salary) pay raises for staff in boom areas like Fort MacMurray it is easy to see why the monitoring does not get done.

 

[a_majoor]

Lord Black raises more issues which should be part of the public debate and perhaps election issues in 2015. Sadly, the CPC will probably downplay many of these issues; the Young Dauphin could not speak coherently on these issues and the NDP will be far too busy pandering to the new Quebec base to effectively engage:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/09/conrad-black-a-foreign-policy-for-an-ascendant-canada/

Conrad Black: A foreign policy for an ascendant Canada

Conrad Black | Feb 9, 2013 12:01 AM ET | Last Updated: Feb 8, 2013 6:50 PM ET
More from Conrad Black
 
In May, I will be publishing a book about the history of the strategic policies that guided the United States from its colonial status prior to the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763) to the achievement of absolute global paramountcy after the fall of the Berlin Wall. (The fact that the subsequent years have been less successful takes nothing from the astonishing and almost uninterrupted rise of that country prior to the collapse of the U.S.S.R.)

This has put me in a receptive mood for the Canadian defence and public policy think-tanks that occasionally ask me for my opinion about Canada’s stance in contemporary international relations. In general, I think the Harper government has been commendably hard-headed on a variety of fronts but perhaps overly cautious on others.

On climate change, for instance, the Harper government has been cautious about hurling itself into the deep end of carbon taxes and the like (in contrast to former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion, who came close to infringing animal-cruelty laws by naming the family dog “Kyoto,” after the farcical accord agreed to in that Japanese city). Most Canadians support Mr. Harper’s approach, but his lack of environmental bona fides is a constant subject of attack by liberal media and activists.

The same can be said of the Harper government’s policy regarding the Middle East. Non-governmental opinion, and apparently that of many officials within the Foreign Relations and National Defence departments also, seems to oppose the government’s pro-Israeli policy, and to purport to believe that Canada has lost influence in the Arab world. But it is a complete chimera that Canada ever had any influence in the Arab world, and only the occasional tourist buying carpets in the soukh is all the proverbial Arab street would know of Canada.

Canada has acquired some influence with Israel. But more importantly, Stephen Harper and Foreign Minister John Baird have taken a position that is moral and courageous. The fact is that Israel should not negotiate with anyone who does not accept the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. All those who claim to favour the return to Israel of sufficient numbers of allegedly displaced Palestinians and their descendants to swamp the Jewish population of Israel are just as much, if more subtly, advocating the extermination of the state of Israel as those who wish to obliterate it militarily.

Israel was legitimately constituted as a Jewish state by the United Nations in 1948, and was prepared to live within the borders it was then given. The Arab powers went to war in 1948 to strangle the nascent Jewish state, just three years after the liberation of the Nazi death camps that murdered half of the world’s Jewish population (six million Jews, as well as six million non-Jews). The same powers went back to war in 1967 to crush Israel, and lost again, yet now claim an absolute right to return to the 1967 borders, and to object to the construction of settlements anywhere in the West Bank territories that Israel occupied in that war. This construction is the only pressure Israel can assert to persuade even the Palestinians to accept the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state, albeit with borders still to be determined.

As Israel has demonstrated in Gaza and Sinai that it will uproot settlers to achieve a durable peace, those who rankle at Canada’s policy should reconsider their fantasy that Canada would have any influence with the Arabs if it aligned its position against Israel. It would merely be joining the ranks of witless dupes in Europe and Africa who echo or acquiesce in the anti-Semitic blood libels of the United Nations. As I have written here and elsewhere before, the Palestinians are entitled to a viable state (to which they may return), but not to a blank cheque from the world to violate every agreement they make with Israel as they have Oslo. The Harper-Baird foreign policy correctly reflects this.

There also seem to be reservations in politically fashionable circles about the comparative recent de-emphasis in Canadian aid to Africa in favour of aid to Latin America. But surely official policy is correct. Latin America has made much swifter and more uniform progress than Africa in recent years, and is in our hemisphere where we can make common cause much more easily and plausibly than with the polyglot Babel of 53 African states.

Most of Latin America has even reached the level of political maturity of being able to preserve democracy after electing a leftist government (as in Uruguay, Honduras and possibly even Venezuela and even Nicaragua). As a member of the Organization of American States, Canada can work with the sensible Latin American countries and provide a salubrious influence independently of the historically uneven positions taken by the United States in a region that it essentially considered an American suzerainty under the Monroe Doctrine from the 1820s until recently.

    If America’s leaders will not seriously attack demand for drugs in their own country, they shouldn’t expect neighbours to fight the ‘drug war’ for them

There does seem to be a slowly bubbling consensus in official and foreign policy establishment circles to propose reform of international institutions, especially NATO and the United Nations. Canada, as I have noted before, is well-qualified to do this.

There is also some enthusiasm for another complete review of foreign, defence and trade policy in Canada. Such a review should result in a defence policy that was less dependent on passive confidence that the U.S. national interest would require that country to include Canada under its defence umbrella as if it were part of the United States. Such a policy has not been entirely reliable since the end of the Cold War, as the two countries, though natural allies, do not have identical interests.

We should join a continental missile defence system, but we should also encourage the Latin Americans not to reduce themselves to Civil War in support of the insane American “war on drugs” (which the United States has lost). If the United States will not seriously attack demand for drugs in its own middle and upper classes, as opposed to just trolling through poor African-American districts and imprisoning a half-million of their inhabitants each year, and will not use the world’s greatest national military forces to assure their own borders in adequate numbers to avoid stifling legitimate commerce and tourism, it should not expect its neighbours to do it for them.

Canada should explore defence consortia with foreign groups, especially in regard to the acquisition of war planes; and if we stick with the F-35 fighter, we should ensure that we derive benefit from its production. There is no economic stimulus as effective and benign as national defence, nor any adult education program as effective as the Armer Forces. Canada will raise its influence in the world and its national self-confidence with a larger and more capable military, including some naval vessels that show the flag proudly. (We could show a little more panache with uniforms also.)

There are two other areas that need immediate attention.

In energy, we must complete the oil pipeline to the Eastern provinces at once. It is insanity for the eastern half of our petroleum-rich country to import oil at a cost substantially above what we receive for much of our own Western oil exports.

And the Bank of Canada should stop accumulating U.S. dollars (which as a matter of American policy are being steadily devalued), and should aggressively stockpile gold, which is certain to increase in value over time and of which our current reserves, in a gold-producing country, are 84th in the world, on a par with Mozambique and Sri Lanka, and only 1/13th of our U.S. dollar reserves.

Successive governors of the Bank of Canada prior to Mark Carney sold hundreds of tons of gold at prices that were clearly disadvantageous. This too is insanity, and insanity rarely is effective as national strategic policy.

It is not a flattering comment on Parliament and the media that the public policy debate on some of these issues has not been more enlightening.

National Post
cbletters@gmail.com

 

[Edward Campbell]

The National Post is reporting on a poll that predicts a Liberal majority in a 308 seat HoC if an election were held today and if Justin Trudeau were leading the LPC.

The poll results are:

BQ:                      6%         
Conservatives:  30%
Greens:              2%
Liberals:            41%
NDP:                20%

But when names, especially the Trudeau name, are taken away the results are that the Conservatives and Liberals are in a statistical tie with 32% and 30% respectively. Still, that represents a dip for the Conservatives and a real, measurable surge for the Liberals.

It is likely that, in 2015:

1. Justin Trudeau will lead the Liberals and the party will get a celebrity bump at the polls from that;

2. There will be a 338 seat HoC ~ advantage to the Conservatives; and

3. There will have been expensive, aggressive and nasty advertising campaigns between now and then ~ advantage Conservatives because they have, by far and away, the most money to spend on advertising.

Consequently: another Conservative majority government seems likely.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, is an article from MacLeans that outlines the main Conservative priorities for the next year or so and, one presumes, towards the 2015 election:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/02/08/the-power-of-symbols/

PM Stephen Harper — a.k.a. Mr. Canada — and the power of symbols
Behind the PM’s new focus on history and heritage

by Nick Taylor-Vaisey on Friday, February 8, 2013

A year ago, Stephen Harper flew to Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum to proclaim an agenda of “major transformations” for the “next generation.” This year Harper skipped the summit in Switzerland and chose to outline his priorities to the first weekly Conservative caucus meeting of the new session with a far more modest message. He listed four priorities, the first three of which—creating jobs, keeping streets safe and supporting healthy families—were unsurprising. But it was Harper’s fourth pillar, an appeal to the Canadian identity, that was something else altogether.

In his speech, Harper foreshadowed the next wave of national commemorations, including the centennial of the First World War in 2014, the bicentennial of Sir John A. Macdonald’s birth the year after that, and planning for Canada’s sesquicentennial in 2017. He also waxed eloquent about the importance of remembrance. “We can look back with pride and forward with confidence as part of a Canada standing tall, the best country in the world.”

Harper wasn’t always known for proclaiming his love of country. On day one of the election campaign that would eventually send him to 24 Sussex Drive in 2006, the first question put to the soon-to-be PM was whether or not he loved his country. Harper said a lot of nice things about Canada, but he did not answer directly in the affirmative. The perceived flub didn’t cost him the election, but it didn’t do him any favours, either.

That was then. In the years since, Conservatives have been accused of appropriating the military, the RCMP and the monarchy, among other national symbols, as they’ve built a formidable national vision. Harnessing Canadian pride worked wonders against Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal leader who Harper trounced in the 2011 campaign. The image of Ignatieff  “just visiting” Canada—repeated ad nauseam in attack ads—juxtaposed with a flag-draped Harper helped propel the Conservatives to a majority win.

Expect the Prime Minister to use the same tactic against NDP Leader Tom Mulcair. As the NDP works to change the rules surrounding future sovereignty referendums in Quebec by introducing a bill to repeal the Clarity Act—a reform that panders to the province’s soft separatists, if you believe the plan’s critics—it creates an opening for Harper, says Frank Graves, president of polling firm Ekos. “Mr. Mulcair is going to have difficulties constructing his national identity,” says Graves. “He can’t really come out with his flag on his sleeve to the same extent as Mr. Harper or Mr. Trudeau, because he’s limited to some extent by the fact his success is very much built in Quebec. Frankly, about half the constituency that supported him would be pretty favourably disposed to Quebec as not only a distinct society, but a separate country.”

While many have observed that the Tories haven’t been hard at work defining the new leader of the Opposition like they did with Stéphane Dion and Ignatieff, Harper’s renewed focus on history and heritage could be the beginning of such a campaign. To date, Mulcair is known mostly to Canadians for two things—his comments about Dutch disease, in which he claimed oil exports have led to an artificially high loonie that’s punished manufacturers, and repealing the Clarity Act. Neither plays well in the West, and the Tories may subtly try to define the NDP leader as another 1970s-style Quebec intellectual who doesn’t love Canada in his bones.

Casting a light on Canadian history certainly finds fans in predictable conservative corners. Bob Plamondon, a consultant and former Conservative insider, says reflecting on the country’s past pays dividends. “I have long taken the view that we are stronger as a nation when we understand and embrace our history. This is particularly important in a bilingual, multicultural and geographically disperse country like Canada,” he says. “There is an element of nation-building in what Harper is trying to accomplish.”

Not everyone agrees with that interpretation. Mulcair has dismissed Harper’s focus on anniversaries as an exercise in “political branding and jingoism” and said the government would be “better off focusing on our obligations for the future.”

The government’s critics have often lamented its appeal to only certain parts of Canada’s history. When Heritage Minister James Moore announced the Canadian Museum of Civilization would be rebranded as a history museum and given a refurbished mandate, the opposition cried foul. Liberals predicted the museum across the river from Parliament Hill would become just another arm of the “Conservative spin machine.” There have been complaints about the scant attention paid to the 250th anniversary this year of the Royal Proclamation, which fundamentally altered the relationship between European settlers and Aboriginal people in Canada. And when the government started naming public buildings in Ottawa after Conservative heroes like Macdonald and John Diefenbaker, a Liberal adviser saw a “strong political impulse at play.”

Likewise, as the government ramps up its preparation for Canada’s 150th birthday celebrations, opposition MPs on the House heritage committee hoped the feds would set up an independent agency to oversee the celebrations—a body similar to that which administered the country’s centennial. But in December the government rejected that option, a move NDP MP Andrew Cash warns could lead to “political interference” in the planning process. Cash also points out that Harper’s government made no mention of the 50th anniversary of public medicare in Canada. In short, opposition parties are accusing the government of trying to lock in a conservative-minded version of Canadian history to entrench the party’s support.

Still, Harper is only the most recent leader to cherry-pick from history to bolster his party’s image, says Tom Flanagan, Harper’s former chief of staff. “The Liberals had a long run at redefining Canadian identity in terms of bilingualism, multiculturalism, socialized medicine and peacekeeping,” he says. “Now it’s time to undo the damage.”

As Harper continues to wrap himself in the flag as Mr. Canada, it will only make life more difficult for Mulcair. But Graves says the two men’s competing appeals to nationalist pride—with Harper, Canada; with Mulcair, Quebec—leave a glaring gap in the middle for a man like Justin Trudeau, who’s hoping to be crowned Liberal leader in the spring. “It opens an opportunity for Mr. Trudeau, who will be able to speak to at least some of the connecting values that transcend the cross-cutting loyalties in English Canada and French Canada,” he says. Outflanking Harper on patriotism would be no easy task. The PM has spent eight years taking an axe to much of the older Trudeau’s legacy. The fireworks in the House might give the Canada Day light show a run for its money.

I expect that the late winter/early spring 2015 budget wil be the mainstay of the Conservative campaign; expect it to be full of goodies ~ low cost goodies if the budget is not balanced ~ and promises for the future. But I also expect Prime Minister Harper to have a) demonized both Muclair and Trudeau and b) reinforced his evident "love of country" in a crass appeal to Canada's own somewhat embarrassing exceptionalism.

 

[dapaterson]

Remember, though, a week is a long time in politics.  And a smart opposition will link Harper to his senate appointees: Brazeau and Duffy.  They are both damaging to his brand - and they're both safe in a cozy sinecure that's almost impossible to revoke, so they'll still be lingering like dead fish two years from now.

"Mr Harper, do you accept responsibility for the unfit men you named to the Senate?" can be a powerful message.  It draws into question Harper's judgement.

A smart Liberal would toss Mac Harb overboard now to clear the decks for an all-out attack on the Tories in '15.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Remember, though, a week is a long time in politics.  And a smart opposition will link Harper to his senate appointees: Brazeau and Duffy.  They are both damaging to his brand - and they're both safe in a cozy sinecure that's almost impossible to revoke, so they'll still be lingering like dead fish two years from now.

"Mr Harper, do you accept responsibility for the unfit men you named to the Senate?" can be a powerful message.  It draws into question Harper's judgement.

A smart Liberal would toss Mac Harb overboard now to clear the decks for an all-out attack on the Tories in '15.

Agreed, just as a smart Tory will toss aside Brazeau and Duffy, after taking credit for trying to give a First nations person a leg up and, also, explaining why elected senators are better quality people and can be turfed out at the next election.

 

[dapaterson]

Agreed, just as a smart Tory will toss aside Brazeau and Duffy, after taking credit for trying to give a First nations person a leg up and, also, explaining why elected senators are better quality people and can be turfed out at the next election.

Harper doesn't toss people overboard willingly, and keeps them on too long.  Bev Oda comes to mind as someone kept on well past her best before date.

 

[PuckChaser]

Duffy needs to go sooner rather than later, but I agree with DAP that the Tories tend to give people too much of a benefit of the doubt. Duffy is abusing the system (and stupidly using an Ontario health card while claiming PEI residency) so he needs to be made an example of.

 

[GAP]

Duffy needs to go sooner rather than later, but I agree with DAP that the Tories tend to give people too much of a benefit of the doubt. Duffy is abusing the system (and stupidly using an Ontario health card while claiming PEI residency) so he needs to be made an example of.

Duffy will probably skate by due to actually having a cottage (home) In PEI....lotsa "I didn't knows, mea culpa's , etc"....