Election 2015

[Edward Campbell]

It appears that no one, possibly - actually probably - including the Speaker of the Senate, actually knows what "resident" means. Senator Duffy's cottage may be all that's required under the letter of whatever the law is, eventually, determined to be. Senator Pamela Wallin may be on thinner ice.

 

[The Bread Guy]

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

If the media got it right, he seems to have known enough to apply for a health card for the province where he is "resident" after having "lived" there since 2008 - this from this past Monday .....

Caught up by questions about his residency, Mike Duffy is applying for a health card from Prince Edward Island, the province he represents in the Senate.

Duffy applied for the card just before Christmas, and someone phoned P.E.I.’s health minister seeking to speed up that process, the minister told the CBC Monday ....

It appears that no one, possibly - actually probably - including the Speaker of the Senate, actually knows what "resident" means ....

While it may be obscure, I would find it very hard to believe nobody knows the answer to "what does resident mean when it comes to senators?" - unless the right person hasn't been asked yet, lest we hear an answer someone doesn't want spoken out loud.

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.

:nod:

 

[Edward Campbell]

.....While it may be obscure, I would find it very hard to believe nobody knows the answer to "what does resident mean when it comes to senators?" - unless the right person hasn't been asked yet, lest we hear an answer someone doesn't want spoken out loud. :nod:

I read today, maybe yesterday, somewhere, that they - the Speaker of the Senate and staff, I guess - have called two lawyers and are now in receipt of three different opinions.

 

[kratz]

Unless further embarrassing facts are dragged into the light, I am way out of my lane here,
but I suspect the Senate will allow Mr Duffy's example to 'skate' past the smell test
in order to uphold the honour of the Senate.

 

[a_majoor]

I note that on the blogosphere there are some spirtited discussions on why the two Conservative Senators are getting such front page coverage, while Liberal Senator Marc Harb's 2 year long breach of trust investigation by the RCMP is passed over with nary a whisper.

I did a quick Google search under Senator Marc Harb, and only one hit for the investigation; Sun News from 2011, natch. Otherwise, nothing.

 

[Edward Campbell]

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.

I agree, but in 2013, in the preparatory phase for the 2015 election he should do so: both for a handful of senators and, equally, for a couple of MPs, too.

He should compare Sen Brazeau to former Sen Lavigne and Sen Duffy to Sen Harb and say, "See, folks: this is why we should ALL elect our senators; you, the good, sensible people of Canada, are far less likely to elect bad people than we political professionals are to appoint them."

He should read the riot act to the religious conservatives and tell them that while it's OK to promote their pet causes they must, in every speech, confirm that their opinion are not the Conservative Party position and the Prime Minister is firm in his resolve to treat those issues as settled. Those who cannot manage that will not get their nomination papers signed. (That is the nuclear option open to every party leader.)

 

[The Bread Guy]

I read today, maybe yesterday, somewhere, that they - the Speaker of the Senate and staff, I guess - have called two lawyers and are now in receipt of three different opinions.

Ok, THAT doesn't really surprise me, either .... :

I agree, but in 2013, in the preparatory phase for the 2015 election he should do so: both for a handful of senators and, equally, for a couple of MPs, too.

He should compare Sen Brazeau to former Sen Lavigne and Sen Duffy to Sen Harb and say, "See, folks: this is why we should ALL elect our senators; you, the good, sensible people of Canada, are far less likely to elect bad people than we political professionals are to appoint them."

Mind you, some of those the people have elected have been far from perfect, too.

He should read the riot act to the religious conservatives and tell them that while it's OK to promote their pet causes they must, in every speech, confirm that their opinion are not the Conservative Party position and the Prime Minister is firm in his resolve to treat those issues as settled. Those who cannot manage that will not get their nomination papers signed. (That is the nuclear option open to every party leader.)

:nod:  Sounds like a variation this episode of "Yes Prime Minister".

 

[dapaterson]

Intersting.  A well-connected Tory from the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities is fighting the proposed new boundareis in the province.  Apparently, having urban ridings runs counter to Saskatchewan's ideals.

Or maybe it's just gerrymandering...

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/30/the-scheer-madness-of-saskatchewans-boundary-battle/

http://www.redecoupage-federal-redistribution.ca/content.asp?section=sk&dir=now/proposals&document=index&lang=e

 

[Edward Campbell]

Intersting.  A well-connected Tory from the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities is fighting the proposed new boundareis in the province.  Apparently, having urban ridings runs counter to Saskatchewan's ideals.

Or maybe it's just gerrymandering...

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/30/the-scheer-madness-of-saskatchewans-boundary-battle/

http://www.redecoupage-federal-redistribution.ca/content.asp?section=sk&dir=now/proposals&document=index&lang=e

Your second thought is correct. But it is suburbs, not rural areas or inner cities, that are growing and they are also fertile territory for Conservatives.

 

[a_majoor]

The shift in demographics and economic power starting in the 1980's has (according to the authors of this book) resulted in a permanent change to Canada's political map. While nothing is permanent, demographic change takes a long time, so the CPC is relatively safe until the population crash and die off of the "Boomers" in the 2030-2060 time period:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/22/the-big-shift-canadas-conservatives-poised-for-decades-of-power-in-ottawa/

The Big Shift: Conservatives poised for decades of power in Ottawa, pollster’s book says

Mark Kennedy, Postmedia News | Feb 22, 2013 10:46 PM ET | Last Updated: Feb 23, 2013 1:51 PM ET
More from Postmedia News

Canada’s Conservatives will be the “perpetually dominant” ruling party this century because of a fundamental shift in society, says a new book by an eminent pollster and a political journalist.

According to the authors of The Big Shift, many people — especially the central Canadian “elites” who once set the national agenda — don’t realize how much the country has changed.

A coalition of influence and power has shifted to the West and Ontario suburbs, where the Tories are strong.

Waves of immigration, much of it from Asia, have brought conservative values.

Related

    Michael Den Tandt: The trend is the friend for Conservative fortunes
    Tory support surges as latest poll shows not even Justin Trudeau could put Liberals back into government
    'We are the true alternative': Liberal leadership candidates reject NDP deal in first debate
    John Ivison: Conservatives may be government but the public service is still in power

And Quebec — with all the associated hand-wringing about national unity — no longer captures the nation’s attention like it once did.

The May 2, 2011, election that gave Prime Minister Stephen Harper a majority government was a “tectonic” shift in Canadian history, write the book’s authors, Ipsos Reid pollster Darrell Bricker and Ottawa journalist John Ibbitson. Ipsos Reid is the official pollster for Postmedia News.

And it’s just the beginning of a long hold on power, they predict.

“Something fundamental is happening,” they write.

“Politics in Canada is dividing along ideological lines, and those divisions will only grow sharper over time.”

“We believe that fortune favors the Harper government in the next election. But we don’t believe this is about the next election. We believe it is about the next decade, the next generation, and beyond.

“We believe that the Conservative party will be to the 21st century what the Liberal party was to the 20th: the perpetually dominant party, the natural governing party.”

The authors are keen observers of national politics. Bricker, president of Ipsos Reid, has been polling for decades and his surveys on political trends are regularly featured in stories by Postmedia News. Ibbitson is chief political correspondent for the Globe and Mail.

In an interview, Bricker said they wrote the book after witnessing many politicians, academics and journalists — they call them “Laurentian elites” — failing to understand the significance of the changes that led to Harper’s electoral success.

“The big point of the book is that the country you thought you knew doesn’t exist anymore,” said Bricker.

“All those values that you thought bound us from coast to coast — the Laurentian consensus — no longer apply to a country that’s changed so dramatically.”

“One party has recognized it, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t opportunities in this for other parties.”

The book stresses that the Conservatives will “not govern forever” and that there will be times when they are defeated by a “progressive coalition.”

But for that to happen, they argue, the opposition must beat the Tories “on their own turf” — by appealing to voters in the West and Ontario suburbs and by gaining the trust of immigrants.

Still, the book predicts that “certain political fundamentals have fallen into place that will ensure Conservative dominance for the foreseeable future.”
   
It began with Harper’s Tories, who are credited in the book for recognizing the “Big Shift” in Canada and for tailoring their policies to be in sync with that change.

“Harper’s greatest achievement has been to forge, over four elections, a modern Conservative coalition with the potential to become an enduring force in Canadian politics, one that will long outlast him,” write the authors.

Harper’s rise to power has been slow but steady in the past decade. He kept Paul Martin’s seemingly invincible Liberals to a minority in the 2004 election. Then he won Tory minorities in 2006 and 2008. And in 2011, in an election described by the book as a turning point in history, Harper won a majority.

“Harper and his closest advisers were the first to anticipate the tremendous political potential of the Big Shift,” the book says.

“He recognized that the West was transforming from a region of protest to an emerging centre of power.

“He saw the potential of winning away immigrant voters from the Liberals. He exploited the growing frustration of the suburban middle class in Ontario with a federal agenda that was more interested in expanding entitlements than in giving them a tax break. He saw that crime, whatever the statistics might say, was a lurking concern for many.”

 

[a_majoor]

Interestoing blog post looking at the "Big Shift", and demonstrating that the CPC and NDP should be considered post "Big Shift" parties. How much you agree probably depends on how you interpret the evidence. I'm not as convinced that the NDP is the party of "suburban" Canada (living in the suburbs myself gives me a bit of perspective  ;D), but I will agree the CPC needs to work much harder to make inroads in the Urban areas of Canada.

http://princearthurherald.com/news/detail/?id=c8430332-b5bf-4dd2-a806-fe152f2dd01a

Fears Abound as Canada’s “Big Shift” Continues to Unfold
BY BRUCE A. STEWART
18 March 2013

Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson's book 'The Big Shift: The Seismic Change in Canadian Politics, Business, and Culture and what it means for our future'

When Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson released The Big Shift: The Seismic Change in Canadian Politics, Business, and Culture and what it means for our future, a lot of people drew the immediate conclusion that they were talking about the Conservatives as Canada’s “natural governing party” of the 21st century.

That’s a fear reaction at work. It’s just as big a fear reaction, in fact, as the one I experience moving from Vancouver to Toronto three years ago, when I was told, by one of the members of the advisory board for the organization I’d come east to lead, that “ need[ed] to put all those notions of the West mattering to one side, now you’re in Toronto you’ll learn that the country is run from here, for here".

Premier Robert Ghiz of Prince Edward Island gave us another fear reaction on the weekend, when he went on CBC Radio One’s The House to earnestly explain why Islanders working in fish or food processing plants absolutely needed EI for the months the plants were shut (instead of asking why the processors don’t pay people enough to cover the down months or have an option to spread their pay out over twelve months, as is done with teachers).

Of course, for the six or seven people left awake in Canada still following the Liberal leadership race, all seven of the remaining contestants in that beauty pageant are at pains to point out that it’s through them and their party that we’ll avoid the biggest fear reaction of all: the isolation of Québec.

Population shifts (and economic shifts) are nothing new in Canada. At the time of Confederation the industrial heartland of the country was in the Maritimes. The shift from water to rail for the transportation of goods and people did as much to make Ontario and Québec the new economic heartland as did the National Policy of Macdonald’s day.

As rail opened up the northern reaches of Ontario and Québec, and the West of the country, the stage was set for the shift that is taking place today.

That you can form a majority government out of rural and suburban Ontario, coupled with Western Canada, shouldn’t be a surprise. The West and Ontario are peers, in terms of population, economic might, and interests.

What the fear mongers and people detesting change (like my advisor earnestly telling me about the old order in Canada) fail to see is that the Big Shift has created not one, but two, parties that “get it” and are busy exploiting it.

We don’t see Thomas Mulcair’s NDP the way we see Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, but it’s as post-Big Shift a party as is the current government.

True, the Mulcair NDP have a little over half their caucus in Québec. On the polls, they’d hold 90 per cent of those seats, and are neck-and-neck with the Liberals in the Maritimes (the Conservatives are third there). Their “shift” combination includes more of urban Ontario and the West than does the Harper approach (except in Calgary and Saskatchewan, whose urban seats include huge rural hinterlands), making up for getting less of the suburban vote. But they’re equally rural in BC and Northern Ontario.

This is the squeeze play that has the Liberal Party in its grip (and helps keep the Greens from doing more than electing an MP where they concentrate their resources).

There are those whose fear of the switch is so great they’ll vote Liberal forever, as the guardians of the ancien ordre and ancien régime. (A very good friend of mine left Montréal in the 1970s and only recently cast his first non-Liberal vote. Some reflexes are deeply engrained.) But for many Canadians, no matter how attractive the next leader might be, the party no longer speaks to their reality.

This is, after all, a country where you can poll 27 per cent in the national polls and bring in 20-25 seats nationwide — and 28 per cent and get around 100 (if that extra one per cent comes from being in tune with the real lived experience of the winning margin).

Where we’re headed, in fact, is for the economic reality of power being in Ontario and the West lining up at last with political reality. We’ll have a clash at each election between the rural-suburban Conservatives and the urban-suburban NDP — and it’s the suburban voters who’ll decide things.

Québec’s earnest desire to put the whole separation bit behind it politically and start dealing with real issues — the impetus that gave the Coalition Avenir Québec its strength in the 2012 provincial election, and that sent voters to the NDP in the 2011 federal election — actually holds the promise of seeing Québec join the politics of the big shift. Inertia will keep the Conservatives from benefitting from that for a generation more. But Québec will be a player if it avoids going back to the Liberal:Bloc Québécois style stand-off over the old Laurentian ideal of Canada (the periphery as a colony of a centre dominated with the issue of Québec separation).

As for Atlantic Canada, there are a growing number of voices in that region recognizing that being paid to stagnate isn’t healthy — Liberal MP Scott Brison (Kings-Hants, NS), for instance, has talked extensively about this, in counterpoint to Liberal Premier Ghiz’ “don’t change the existing regime” views — and the growth of the NDP to make this the only part of the country that is truly split three ways shows the growth of the shift there as well.

Will the Conservatives benefit the most in the short run? Certainly they are. But what’s really happening here is the missing story: the growth of the NDP into the Conservatives’ challenger, and the diminishment of the Liberals by both.

That’s grounded in both today’s NDP and today’s Conservatives speaking for and to the shift, and the Liberals speaking for what used to be.

Frankly, I’d bet on the people who have the way things are now firmly in view.

 

[a_majoor]

Well it looks like the "Three Amigos" proposal to combined forces riding by riding has failed its first live fire test. Despite this, I expect to see continuing calls for this sort of "cooperation" probably until after the 2019 election. Some people will never learn....

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/03/25/kelly-mcparland-three-party-co-operation-against-tories-runs-aground-in-snows-of-labrador/

Kelly McParland: Three-party co-operation against Tories hits a skid in Labrador

Kelly McParland | 13/03/25 | Last Updated: 13/03/25 1:01 PM ET
More from Kelly McParland | @KellyMcParland

The notion of an electoral co-operation group (NOT a coalition, got it?) to act in happy collaboration with one another against the evil Conservatives appears to have run aground on its very first outing. Not a good sign when you’re hoping to bring down a government.

Ex-Liberal MP Todd Russell won’t seek Grit nod for Labrador byelection

The man who lost his seat to former Labrador MP Peter Penashue two years ago says he won’t seek the federal Liberal nomination in an upcoming byelection.

Todd Russell chose to make the announcement on CBC’s Labrador Morning and could not be reached for comment in advance of the program.

Russell says he believes his time will be better spent in his current role as president of the NunatuKavut, a non-profit organization that represents the Inuit-Metis of southern Labrador.

On Saturday Elizabeth May, leader and sole MP of the federal Green Party, said she would not run a candidate in an upcoming byelection for the riding of Labrador. Evidently figuring this was a great time to test the much-discussed thesis that three opposition parties, working in tandem, could do serious damage to the Tories, she suggested the New Democrats similarly demur from running a candidate. That would leave the Liberals, who came within 79 votes of besting Peter Penashue in 2011, a clear field.

Assuming — not unreasonably — that many of the Green and NDP voters would opt for the Liberal, and very few for the Tory, it seemed to present an excellent opportunity to steal a seat.  So much so, in fact, that Liberal MP — and long-shot leadership candidate — Joyce Murray issued a quick news release announcing that it had all been her idea, and that she’d talked May into bowing out gracefully.

    “I am solidly on the record supporting local level electoral cooperation to elect progressives and defeat the Harper Conservatives,” Murray said. “In this instance it is abundantly clear that the progressive candidate with the greatest ability to do that would be the Liberal candidate and not the Green Party candidate.”

Um, not so fast there. If you check the results of the 2011 election, the Greens attracted 139 votes out of almost 10,692 in Labrador. The NDP, though well back in the race, still managed 2,120, about half the totals of the Liberal and Conservative candidates. So throwing her support to the Liberals mainly saved May the expense and bother of running a no-hope campaign in one of the country’s more remote areas. No wonder she was so pleased to get the phone call from Joyce Murray offering her a face-saving exit from a looming embarrassment.

    The NDP’s candidate could enter the race based on the support of fewer than 40 Labradorians.

In addition, Ms. Murray failed to check first with the NDP, which failed to grasp the evident superiority of the Liberal situation. On Sunday it went ahead with an online ballot that drew all of 106 votes, split between three candidates to represent the party. The winner was Harry Borlase, a native northerner who works for a research group focusing on the North. The precise vote split was not revealed. But the paucity of participants suggests the candidate could enter the race based on the support of fewer than 40 Labradorians. And, just to make the situation even more unsettled, Todd Russell, the Liberal candidate who almost defeated Peneshue in 2011 revealed that he didn’t intend to challenge him again anyway.

So, to recap: a Liberal leadership candidate is claiming credit for organizing a co-operative effort to defeat the Tories in Labrador, but didn’t check first with the NDP, and now doesn’t have a candidate for her own party anyway. Is this supposed to put a fright in the Conservative cause?

By the time it gets settled, the Labrador contest may set some sort of record for chicanery in a single riding.  The reason there’s a by-election at all is because Penashue stepped down on March 14 amid a swirl of allegations about improper election donations he’d accepted. Penashue was first elected in 2011, and, as the first Innu from Labrador ever elected to the Commons, was quickly welcomed into Stephen Harper’s cabinet and named minister of intergovernmental affairs. But as allegations of dubious donations and overspending in his campaign grew — Elections Canada found his election campaign had accepted 28 different ineligible donations — he announced he’d resign and seek to regain his seat in a byelection.

Mr. Harper has pledged his staunch support and accused the opposition of running a negative campaign — which is a hoot in itself, coming from Canada’s all-time champion negative campaigners. The Prime Minister maintains Mr. Penashue is the best MP Labrador has ever had. That drew a critical respsonse form a Liberal MP from Newfoundland, which in turn drew a counter-response from Defence Minister Peter MacKay, who said it was “distatseful.”

Meantime, the CBC reported a website set up for the Penashue campaign was registered before he’d even stepped down, and its request for donations leads directly to the main Conservative website, rather than to Penashue. Having dismissed his spending problems as a rookie mistake,  Mr. Penshue seems determined to get a head start this time around.

National Post

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is an interesting bit of speculation or prognostication, if you will:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/why-stephen-harper-may-call-an-election-earlier-than-planned/article10337226/

Why Stephen Harper may call an election earlier than planned

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

John Ibbitson
The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Mar. 26 2013

Those who think the next federal election will be in fall 2015 should think again. The election is far more likely to happen in spring 2015 instead.

If so, then two years from this week could mark the launch of the next campaign.

Governments across Canada have passed legislation establishing fixed election dates, and the federal government is no exception. Bill C-16, passed in 2006, fixes the federal election date at the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year after the previous election., which occurred May 2, 2011, after the minority Conservative government was defeated in the House. By that reckoning, we next go to the polls Oct. 19, 2015.

Unless we don’t. The right of the Crown to dissolve Parliament on the advice of the prime minister is absolute and no law may infringe on it. Mr. Harper has already disregarded the election law once, when he cut short the 39th Parliament in autumn 2008. Would he do it again?

The arguments against an early call appear compelling. The Conservatives passed the law; they should honour it. They have a majority government and face neither defeat nor paralysis in the House. The population would not take kindly to being forced to the polls early when there is a perfectly good election date already on the books. The Conservatives could pay the price for such opportunism.

Why, then, might the Prime Minister abandon his own law and go early? The reasons are both logistical and strategic.

By unhappy coincidence, many of the provincial fixed election dates are bunched together. In autumn 2015, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Northwest Territories all go to the polls. Ontario is scheduled to have an election then as well, though the current minority government is unlikely to survive that long.

With so many provinces holding elections at around the same time, the federal government would be doing everyone a service by vacating the field to avoid confusion. Several premiers have asked Stephen Harper to change the federal election date, saying they will change theirs if he won’t.

Many of the same people staff federal, provincial and municipal elections. Party workers often help out in both federal and provincial campaigns. If there are two separate elections going on at the same time in a province, voters could become confused about the location of polling stations, advance polling dates and the like.

It would make sense for all concerned to move the federal election to spring 2015. Your correspondent favours the second Monday in May, when the weather is warming but it is still too early in most of the country to plant in the back yard or fish on a lake.

Cynics – and they abound – will offer a different explanation for a spring election call. The Tories have promised tax breaks, including income-splitting for parents with children, once the budget is balanced. Last week’s budget confirmed that the budget will, indeed, be in balance in 2015, which means the Conservatives will be able to include their tax cuts in that budget.

If Mr. Harper then asked the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament, the budget would become an election platform (chock full, ironically, of measures first announced in the last election platform.)

Wait six months until fall 2015 and those tax cuts would be old news.

Mr. Harper will doubtless test the political winds early in 2015 and make a decision then.

But if the polls are favourable, expect a spring vote. The Prime Minister will say he’s doing it to help out the provinces. Whether you believe him is up to you.

John Ibbitson is The Globe and Mail's chief political writer in Ottawa.

I agree with Ibbitson's rationale for changing from fall to spring. Campaigns are, at a lawful minimum (and recent traditional maximum), 36 days in length, so an election on, say, 12 May 15 would require the campaign to begin on (or before) 6 Apr 15.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Edward Greenspon, an experienced commentator and a senior executive with the Toronto Star, offers an opinion on Harper Vs. Trudeau in this piece which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Toronto Star:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/04/02/stephen_harpers_new_coalition_will_be_tested_by_happy_warrior_justin_trudeau_greenspon.html

Stephen Harper’s new coalition will be tested by happy warrior Justin Trudeau: Greenspon
Next federal election will test book’s thesis that Canada has fundamentally changed.

By: Edward Greenspon Columnist,

Published on Tue Apr 02 2013

In their new book, The Big Shift, pollster Darrell Bricker and journalist John Ibbitson argue that Stephen Harper’s 2011 majority was no accident but the natural by-product of a joining of forces between Western Canada and suburban Ontario, particularly its immigrant middle class. This conservative coalition formed around the likes of low taxes, criminal vigilance, pride in military and suppression of environmentalists and other anti-growth activists. It has, they contend, changed the face of Canadian politics irrevocably.

They pronounce the old belief system, one they refer to as the Laurentian consensus, dead and buried. Their Laurentian elite lived for the Quebec-Canada fissure and, on slower days, regional transfers, support programs, rights regimens, public broadcasting and all that jazz. Their eclipse is best captured by the decline of the Liberal Party of Canada, which ruled for a formidable 69 years in the 20th century.

“We believe the Conservative party will be to the 21st century what the Liberal party was to the 20th: the perpetually dominant party, the naturally governing party.”

The authors are friends of mine. But I’m sure they won’t object if I intrude into their thesis.

There is much to debate about whether Canadian values have shifted meaningfully or whether Conservative success is more exogenous — the product of the sponsorship scandal, successive Liberal leaders with serious political deficits, Jack Layton’s 2011 campaign surge and the last-minute stampede of blue Liberals to the right. It is hard to imagine the prime minister really thought he had a majority in him a week before election day.

But what makes The Big Shift intriguing is the likelihood that its thesis will be tested sooner rather than later. Setting aside Thomas Mulcair for a moment, the next election almost certainly will pit Stephen Harper against Justin Trudeau, each an exemplar of the book’s rising and falling coalitions. If Trudeau isn’t a prototypical member of the Laurentian elite, who is?

Well, in my view, not this Trudeau. He’s too young to adhere to the old consensus; it would hardly compute for him. And he’s more royalty than elite.

In contrast to Harper, Trudeau is the child of a post-ideological age — pragmatic and idealistic both; green and growth-oriented; global, digital and socially connected and situational to the nth degree. His cohort bristles at state interventions in their private lives and are perfectly at ease with a mélange of identities in a single saucepan.

As widely noted, Trudeau is no policy heavyweight. So far, he has managed to float like a butterfly above the fray — much to the dismay of, well, the Laurentian elites. Rather than succumb to policy demands framed for the convenience of others, he will need to concentrate on his party’s essential narrative, which has gone missing in recent years. What makes the Liberals different and relevant? He’s already laid down a few markers: opposed to the Gateway pipeline route to the West Coast but not opposed in theory to shipping oilsands product; supportive of Chinese investment in Nexen; attentive to middle-class angst; in favour of decriminalizing marijuana; against reopening the Constitution — each a brick in a storyline under construction.

Trudeau is sensitive to the power shifts Bricker and Ibbitson portray. That his first campaign foray skipped over the Gatineaus and Outremonts, classic Laurentian elite stops, for Calgary, Richmond and Mississauga demonstrates an appreciation for the emerging Pacific century and the defining struggle for the hearts and minds of the aspirational immigrant classes. The Conservatives have done extraordinary spade work in these communities, but the Trudeau brand also resonates with New Canadians. This is a battle he cannot afford to lose.

We live in an age of low party loyalty and minimal public engagement. In a campaign, a potentially decisive pool of voters can move suddenly on superficial input. Blink — you’re elected! Trudeau’s weapons of choice are style and personality. There’s no shame in this: more voters are swayed by sentiment than analysis. Coolness and authenticity, if they stand up to public scrutiny, are not bad positioning.

Nothing is preordained in politics. As royalty, Justin Trudeau gets a break, not a free pass. Assuming he can displace Mulcair as the alternative, Harper will severely test whether our occasional pugilist can really take a punch. In the end, Trudeau will have to neutralize policy as the dependent variable (he’s not his father) and ride the sunny ways (again, not his father) that served Liberal leaders like Laurier and Chrétien so well. The happy warrior against a preternaturally sullen opponent is the matchup he requires.

Edward Greenspon is Vice-President, Strategic Investments, at the Star. He is a former newspaper editor and Ottawa bureau chief. His column appears monthly. [email protected]

Edward Greenspon is oversimplifying: it is a mistake to not consider the influences of both Thomas Mulcair's NDP and a reinvigorated Bloc Québécois. Both will provide both opportunities and obstacles for both Prime Minister Harper and M. Trudeau.

But, I think Greenspon is right when he says, "In a campaign, a potentially decisive pool of voters can move suddenly on superficial input. Blink — you’re elected! Trudeau’s weapons of choice are style and personality. There’s no shame in this: more voters are swayed by sentiment than analysis. Coolness and authenticity, if they stand up to public scrutiny, are not bad positioning." Providing the "public scrutiny" is, in part, the job of the media but, based on the evidence to date it is more enthralled with M. Trudeau's 'cool charisma' than is the general public. Thus it will be left to the other major political parties to scrutinize M. Trudeau and we can be sure that they will examine and expose every inch of the man. It will not be pretty but it may be instructive.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Before ceding the next election to M. Trudeau and his "cool charisma," we should, perhaps, consider this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/why-its-too-soon-to-write-the-obituary-for-stephen-harpers-government/article10660563/?cmpid=rss1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Why it’s too soon to write the obituary for Stephen Harper’s government

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

John Ibbitson
The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Apr. 02 2013

The Harper government is experiencing a mid-life crisis.

The back bench is restive, with MPs openly voicing frustration over efforts by the Centre to stifle free speech in the Commons on the abortion issue.

An ambitious trade agenda has yet to produce concrete results. Efforts to connect the oil sands to American refineries and to the Pacific Coast are meeting stiff resistance.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty appears distracted – predicting, for example, an imminent trade deal with South Korea that surprised both Canadian trade officials and the South Koreans.

The communication strategy is at times indecipherable. Cabinet’s decision to withdraw Canada from a United Nations convention on combating desertification went unnoticed until reported by the Canadian Press.

What’s the point of a symbolic gesture if you don’t tell anyone about the gesture?

Some who watch this government closely wonder whether it has lost its way.

In early March, Steve Paikin of TV Ontario’s The Agenda speculated that Mr. Harper might be thinking of stepping down this summer, rather than face Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau in what will be his fifth federal election as Conservative Party leader. This led to a rash of similar articles speculating along the same lines.

Over at the Toronto Star, Chantal Hebert saw the protests from backbench MPs as a sign that Mr. Harper could soon face a leadership challenge.

“After seven years, it would not take all that much to trigger a chain reaction that would have every ambitious member in the government thinking about his or her place in a post-Harper future and manoeuvring accordingly,” she wrote recently.

“On that score, the toothpaste may already be out of the tube.”

At the National Post, John Ivison warned that Mr. Harper’s efforts to muzzle backbenchers on the abortion issue could prove “disastrous for the governing party.”

While the Star’s Thomas Walkom speculated the Conservative Party itself might not survive, disintegrating into the very factions that Mr. Harper so successfully welded together almost a decade ago.

Damning stuff. But before we write the obituaries, there are a few things to remember.

First and foremost, the opposition remains divided. Thomas Mulcair has failed, thus far, to establish the NDP as a credible governing alternative to the Conservatives, especially in the eyes of middle class suburban voters in Ontario, who are the voters who count most.

Justin Trudeau may be the saviour of the Liberal Party, or he may be a young politician still learning the ropes.

Unless and until progressives unite – and there is no sign that they will unite any time soon – the Conservatives must be favoured to win any election, including the one in 2015.

Nor is the government without an agenda. The fact that trade deals haven’t been signed doesn’t mean they won’t be.

The 2013 budget takes aggressive measures to combat unemployment and job shortages by refederalizing labour training.

Governments that are on the way out typically display signs of rudderlessness and aversion to risk. But this government appears, with some measure of enthusiasm, to be girding for a confrontation with public-service unions over sick days and other benefits.

And it continues to own the economy as an issue, with a hell-or-high-water commitment to balance the budget by 2015.

The Harper government, in short, is showing some of the frustrations of middle age. But whether it’s ready to be retired by the voters is still very much in doubt.

As many of the above commentators (and yours truly) would insist, middle age is hardly the end of the line.

John Ibbitson is the chief political writer in Ottawa.

There is still plenty of time - two years until a potential spring 2015 election, two and a half until the scheduled fall election - for Prime Minister to:

    1. Shape the key issue: economic management;

    2. Refine his team and its messages; and

    3. Coax one small slice of Canadians after another towards his views.

It is on policy that M. Trudeau is weakest: against both Prime Minister Harper and M. Mulcair, both of whom are appealing to the mushy middle. Prime Minister Harper is alienating his base, right now, on issues like "free speech" and on the social conservative issues, too - but he is, equally or even more important, making it abundantly clear to all Canadians, even the most obtuse, that he cannot be attacked on abortion rights or gay marriage - that mud will not stick. He can still walk the fine line between saying "this is settled law," and "even if I, personally, disagree." And, in any event, the social conservatives have no place (at least no harmful place) to go.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Speaking of "shaping the message," the NDP is out in fron according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/ndp-to-propose-toning-down-socialism-in-its-constitution/article10730194/
My emphasis added

NDP to propose toning down socialism in its constitution

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Gloria Galloway
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Apr. 03 2013

The New Democratic Party is distancing itself from its socialist roots.

The NDP, which has taken significant steps toward the centre of the political spectrum under both Jack Layton and Thomas Mulcair, is proposing to revise the preamble to its constitution to excise much of the overtly socialist dogma.

It is a change that Mr. Mulcair, a former provincial Liberal from Quebec, declared a priority after he took over as leader of the New Democrats last year and one that moves the party closer to his vision.

But, while the new preamble eliminates language that might frighten away centrist votes, it is also one that prompted considerable debate at the last NDP policy convention in Halifax in 2011.

At that meeting, it was agreed that a committee consisting of former leader Alexa McDonough, former Manitoba MP Bill Blaikie, past party president Brian Topp, NDP MP Elaine Michaud and CUPE’s Pam Beattie would consult with party members and write a new preamble that better explained what the party stands for.

A copy of the new wording is being sent to New Democrats on Wednesday afternoon by party president Rebecca Blaikie and the proposed changes will be put to a vote at the NDP’s upcoming policy convention in Montreal on the second weekend of April.

“This new preamble better reflects the traditions upon which our party was founded, including our founding partner in the labour movement,” Ms. Blakie says in a letter to party members. “If someone asked me what the NDP stands for – I would proudly point them towards this document.”

As it currently stands, the preamble says: “The production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people within a sustainable environment and economy and not to the making of profit.” Which might not sit so well with those Canadians who prefer capitalism over the alternatives.

So, if the party’s new proposed version is accepted, those words will be gone. Instead, the preamble will talk about the need for “sustainable prosperity, and a society that shares its benefits more fairly.”

The new preamble would boast about the pride New Democrats feel in their heritage and their hope for a future inspired by “social democratic and democratic socialist traditions.”

It would no longer promote efforts to “modify and control the operations of monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic and social planning ... and where necessary, the extension of the principle of social ownership.”

There would instead be talk about the need for “a rules based economy, nationally and globally, in which governments have the power to address the limitations of the market.”

And while the existing preamble says the party is proud to be associated with other “democratic socialist parties” of the world, the new preamble merely says New Democrats are party of the family of other “progressive democratic political parties.” The word socialist has been snipped from that sentence.

The push to change the preamble met considerable resistance in 2011 with some long-time members saying the party was sacrificing its ideals to get votes and others complaining that the distinction between the NDP and the Liberals was being eliminated.

But Mr. Mulcair has responded by saying the traditional messaging of the New Democrats repels non-traditional supporters.

“We have to refresh our discourse, modernize our approach, and use language that pleases our supporters, but also attracts people who share our vision,” Mr. Mulcair said after claiming victory in 2012. Now it’s up to party members to decide whether they agree with him.

Gloria Galloway is a parliamentary reporter in The Globe’s Ottawa bureau.

Even if the party rejects all or part of this proposal the act of making the proposal goes some way to shifting the NDP into the political centre-left ~ right where the Liberals want and need to be.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The NDP is free to tone away; it's "priors" (beliefs) will still not be in any doubt.  I haven't noticed any tendency among politicians to bind themselves to printed words.

 

[Edward Campbell]

There are two interesting articles in the Globe and Mail. Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, is the first:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/community/editors-letter/editors-letter-how-justin-trudeau-plans-to-oust-stephen-harper/article11141800/

How Justin Trudeau plans to oust Stephen Harper

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

JOHN STACKHOUSE
The Globe and Mail

Last updated Saturday, Apr. 13 2013

Justin Trudeau looks like the real thing, but we haven't seen him tested the way he will come Monday morning by the Conservatives, NDP and factions within his own party.

At the Liberal leadership showcase in Toronto last weekend, it was hard not to be impressed by his ability to electrify the room. He has a palpable passion for Canada and an uncommon ability to project decency, as you can see from some of these highlights from his final speech.

The latter characteristic will help him with both younger and older voters who will enjoy his effervescence even more when it’s put next to the flat demeanors of Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair. It has to be seen whether it will pass muster with the Tim Hortons crowd that the Liberals must bring back. Think about a software salesperson in Mississauga, Ont., or Richmond, B.C., and you will see the mountain Mr. Trudeau is setting out to scale.

In private, Liberal organizers are realistic about their prospects, which they admit rest on a two-election strategy. They’re aiming to overtake the NDP in 2015 and reduce the Conservatives to a minority. A coalition is then possible, they believe, especially if Mr. Harper steps down. Or they can lie in wait for the next campaign to aim for a majority. To get there, Mr. Trudeau needs to chip away at NDP seats in Toronto, greater Montreal and the lower B.C. mainland and win back some seats from Conservatives in Atlantic Canada and suburban greater Toronto.

The strategy: go left and then right.

Here’s what the Liberals worry about: Seat redistribution heavily favours the Conservatives, especially in suburban Ontario and the West. And Mr. Harper’s approval ratings continue to track well ahead of historical averages. In other words, the Liberals and NDP will tear each other apart for second place, allowing the Conservatives to cruise through another election.

As the Liberals tack left, there is also a range of issues the Conservatives will use as targets on their backs. One of the "blue Liberals" in the leadership race, Martha Hall Findlay, e-mailed me Friday to express her concerns over the "blank cheque" the party is about to write Mr. Trudeau. With her permission, here's her full e-mail.

She comes from the Martin-Manley-McKenna wing of the party, and writes:

"There are, however, many Liberals who are economically protectionist, anti-'big corporations,' and anti-development environmentalists. We are all entitled to our views, something I greatly respect, and the Liberal Party has benefited in the past from being a 'big tent.' But the Liberal Party needs to clarify which of those rather fundamentally different directions it will take. Unfortunately, with a lack of real substantive debate, this leadership campaign has done little to get us there."

Get ready, Mr. Trudeau. The party's over. The biggest challenge of your life awaits, as we lay out our weekend editorial.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And here is the second, also reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/how-justin-trudeau-plans-to-beat-stephen-harper/article11181561/?page=all

How Justin Trudeau plans to beat Stephen Harper

DANIEL LEBLANC
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Saturday, Apr. 13 2013

The Trudeau camp has already drawn up its road map to 2015.

Everything that Justin Trudeau does between now and then, if he wins the Liberal leadership on Sunday, will be with an eye to the next general election. The details of the plan are being closely guarded: Mr. Trudeau and his advisers feel it would be presumptuous and arrogant to publicly speculate on their strategy for the future ahead of the final results of the race.

Speaking with a wide variety of Liberal sources, however, The Globe and Mail has pieced together what they believe to be the eight major challenges facing the front-runner in the race to lead the party after three successive electoral defeats. Over all, the goal is to avoid the trappings of the Ottawa bubble and focus the party’s energy on the next ballot.

Mr. Trudeau has many things to do on Monday, from asking his first question to Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the House of Commons to staffing his parliamentary office. However, he can be expected to quickly lay out his priorities for the future when he makes his most crucial announcement: the Liberal Party’s campaign team for the 2015 election.


1. Start right away to fight 2015 election

The Trudeau camp needs to get its election team up and running as soon as possible. The core members of his leadership bid, having shown their mettle during a seven-month-long campaign, are expected to focus on the next election instead of running his leader’s office in Ottawa. Top advisers and organizers such as Gerald Butts, Katie Telford and Robert Asselin are set to guide the Liberal Party and Mr. Trudeau’s long-term strategy, rather than manage the day-to-day operations of parliamentary affairs. Mr. Trudeau plans to stick to the disciplined, hard-work ethic that has been successful for him so far, while allowing his team to grow to absorb new talent.

Liberals feel that Canadians will want to know that Mr. Trudeau can perform in the House, but the priority will be to continue meeting with voters across the country, showcasing his commitment to learning his job and offering a positive alternative to the Harper government. Mr. Trudeau will benefit from the fact that as the leader of the third-place party in the House, he will not have the same obligations or opportunities as the Official Opposition NDP to keep the government in check, which will free him up for politicking outside of the Ottawa bubble.


2. Concentrate on fundraising and modernizing the party

The Liberal Party of Canada is a relic of the past, carrying a complicated structure of provincial and territorial wings. Past efforts to reform the Liberal Party have met much internal resistance, leaving the organization heavier and more decentralized than the Conservative Party of Canada and the NDP.

Mr. Trudeau and his team are well aware of the need to change their party, but they don’t want to reignite past tensions for the sake of it. The goal remains to be focused on the next election, which means ensuring that the party is the most effective campaign tool possible. One key challenge will be to mesh Mr. Trudeau’s campaign organization with the party structure. Mr. Trudeau has already attracted thousands of volunteers who will be working to get him in office, and he needs to use his strong social-media presence to the benefit of the entire party. The hundreds of thousands of supporters who signed up during the leadership race will also continue to be solicited for money and policy input.

Money is a key ingredient of modern politics, and the Conservative Party has easily beat its opponents at the fundraising game for years. The funds have allowed Mr. Harper’s team to wage large-scale advertising campaigns, but Mr. Trudeau has proven an adept fundraiser during his own leadership bid. His campaign is vowing to transfer about $1-million in unspent funds to the Liberal Party, and he plans to continue amassing money at every opportunity, although the Liberals are not expected to catch up to the Conservatives in the short term.


3. Shuffle the shadow cabinet to showcase veterans and new faces

What to do with party veterans Bob Rae and Ralph Goodale, especially if they plan to run again in the next election? Where to place supporters Dominic LeBlanc and Scott Brison? What happens to leadership rivals Joyce Murray and Marc Garneau? Which new faces to promote?

Mr. Trudeau will have lots of choices as he puts his stamp on his caucus, made up of 34 other MPs and 36 senators. He is currently slotted in the position of critic for amateur sport, so his eventual victory will not create a big hole to fill. Still, he will need to strike a careful balance between putting a new face on his parliamentary team and ensuring that veteran performers are put to good use and form a united front behind their new leader.


4. Develop an approach to Quebec to increase support there

He is a son of the province, but Mr. Trudeau is also an enemy of the Quebec sovereignty movement, putting him in a tight spot among the nationalist electorate that has a large sway in francophone ridings.

Mr. Trudeau supports the Constitution that was left behind by his father, former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, leaving him a political outsider in many parts of the province, especially with elites. In that context, Mr. Trudeau will need to portray his overall values and priorities as being in touch and in sync with those of most Quebeckers. Any victory for Mr. Trudeau in 2015 will depend on his ability to increase the Liberal haul of seats in Quebec, where it currently holds eight ridings out of 75. His adversary on that front will be NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair, who is trying to position himself as the prime-minister-in-waiting. Expect Mr. Trudeau to continue to reach out to Quebeckers by saying he will continue to listen to their concerns and inviting them to participate in the federal government.


5. Flesh out Liberal policy after hearing from party members

The Liberal Party of Canada will organize a convention in 2014. The next meeting of the party will offer the perfect occasion for Mr. Trudeau to flesh out the thin policy offering that formed the heart of his leadership campaign. Mr. Trudeau has outlined a number of broad strokes and values that would guide him in office, namely a focus on education, free trade, improving the lot of the middle class and saving the environment.

However, the Trudeau camp made a deliberate calculation that it was best to avoid revealing his plan too early in the game, both to avoid opening himself up to attacks and to allow Liberals to get involved in the policy-making process. When Liberals gather in about a year’s time, they will be able to shape and approve the policy platform that will guide Mr. Trudeau’s first election campaign as Liberal leader, and try to put an end to the attacks against his supposedly lightweight agenda. However, the policy development process will be broader, with a full platform having to wait until closer to the election date.


6. Make sure riding associations are ready for open nominations

All 338 Liberal candidates in the next election campaign will be selected through open nomination processes, including Mr. Trudeau in the riding of Papineau and all other sitting Liberal MPs. Mr. Trudeau has pledged not to use his powers to appoint anyone, although he could well provide his support to star candidates whom he attracts to the party in key ridings.

The situation means that Mr. Trudeau needs to ensure that all riding associations are up and running across the country as soon as possible, and ready to select their standard-bearers for 2015. The job of attracting quality candidates will be easier if the party continues its strong performance in public-opinion polls, but the Liberals still face an uphill battle in many parts of the country.


7. Win two crucial by-elections, electoral tests for the party

Mr. Trudeau’s first major test as leader will come on May 13 when a by-election is held in the riding of Labrador. He is expected to travel to the riding before voting day, and his party is the favourite to take back the seat that was in Conservative hands until the recent resignation of MP and intergovernmental affairs minister Peter Penashue. A victory would offer a sweet moment in Mr. Trudeau’s first month as leader, while a defeat would prove a bitter letdown.

The next electoral test will come if Liberal MP Denis Coderre resigns his seat in Montreal to run for the mayoralty of the city in the fall. The riding is also traditionally Liberal, but the NDP will fight hard to expand its power base in Quebec. In addition, the separatist Bloc Québécois will look to emerge on the winning side of a potential three-way race, and can be expected to launch an all-out attack against Mr. Trudeau in his home province.


8. Keep focused on the message, even during heated exchanges

Mr. Trudeau was nervous when he stood up in Question Period last month to grill Mr. Harper, relying on his notes to ask his questions. He has been practising and can be expected to be better prepared if he gets the chance to quiz the Prime Minister again on Monday.

Liberals are well aware there will be much media attention on the first few exchanges between Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Harper, although they insist the election will not be won in the House. In addition, Mr. Trudeau’s team has been coaching him throughout the campaign to ensure that he remains focused on his message, while avoiding a theatrical or overdramatic delivery during heated exchanges.

The ultimate goal is for Mr. Trudeau to be prepared for the all-leaders’ debate that will be held in 2015.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I find the Liberal Plan, in the first article realistic and possible. The all important AIM ~ displace the NDP ans the official opposition ~ is certainly doable. Holding Prime Minister Harper to a minority will be tougher.

But we can be sure that Thomas Mulcair will not go down without one helluva fight.

The Globe and Mail's eight point prescription in the second article is also both plausible and possible, albeit not as easy as it looks. Number 4 is especially important. M. Trudeau must displace Thomas Mulcair and the NDP in QC. The NDP will certainly lose some seats to a revitalized BQ or another QC nationalist party; but the Liberals need to take away NDP seats, too and a platform that works in left leaning QC will not work very well in most of the 30 new seats in suburban ridings. See, then, Number 5: how to develop a platform that works across Canada ~ something neither the Conservatives nor the NDP need to worry about, the NDP can remain left of centre and the Conservatives will aim to win without QC but those luxuries are denied the Liberals.