Elections

My Prediction: Dion will stay on

Royce Koop — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:56:26 -0600

I hate making predictions, but can't help feeling that every smarmy media pundit on the air this evening was wrong about Dion's impending resignation.
Dion is smart and, like Harper, he's improving. He's also stubborn. If Dion is intent on staying on - and the fact that he didn't announce his resignation this evening suggests that he is - then the party will discover that there are enormous costs attached to getting rid of him.
Canada may be entering a new period of alternating minority governments, with Harper and Dion taking the places of Diefenbaker and Pearson.

Election 2008: Winners & Losers

Royce Koop — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:47:25 -0600

Winner: Stephane Dion. The snide comment he got off at CTV and Roger Smith ("...you understand?") was great, almost as good as Smith and Lloyd Robertson's breathless, wounded indignation afterward.
Loser: CTV. While results were pouring in from B.C., the network cut to a lengthy, chummy interview with Bob Rae, followed up by a simultaneous interview with Michael Ignatieff. I watched the B.C. results at the bottom of the screen while Rae and Ignatieff complimented one another and played coy over their leadership intentions. Lame.
Losers Again: Certain members of the media seem to think that the Canadian public is attuned to internal Liberal politics like it is a partisan version of Coronation Street. No sooner had the polls closed in B.C. that I was subjected to discussion of Liberal leadership politics. Does this sort of politics junkie chatter really attract viewers?
Losers: Hedy Fry and Ujjal Dosanjh. Both re-elected in B.C., they used their post-victory interviews to bitterly complain about how the N.D.P. and Green Party had split the vote and allowed Harper to be re-elected. The ferocity of these attacks really had to be seen to be believed.
Winner: Linda Duncan, who won in an Alberta riding. Did I mention that she was running for the NDP? Whoa.
Winner: Stephen Harper. Watching his speech tonight, I couldn't believe how much he's improved as a public speaker.
Loser: The Kitchen Table. Could we possibly outlaw the use of this term as a slogan in future election campaigns?
Loser: Gilles Duceppe. The standard media narrative this evening was that every party lost except for the Bloc, which cleaned up. Really? The party made significant gains in neither votes nor seats, and Duceppe couldn't match the standard set by Lucien Bouchard in the 1993 federal election. The Bloc couldn't even prevent Justin Trudeau from winning in Papineau.
Losers/Winners: Liberals in B.C.. The party held on to several of its B.C. seats. But three of those - Vancouver South, Esquimalt, and Newton North Delta - were nail-biters and the Liberal incumbents were lucky to have held their seats. A slight shift in the last few daysmight have seen all three of these go to the Tories, and the result would have been a genuine disaster for the party in B.C.. In B.C., Liberal Joyce Murray in Quadra and Conservative Alice Wong in Richmond deserve special congratulations. They were both thought to be in tight races, but ended up running away with their wins.
Loser: Quebec. Harper twisted himself into a pretzel to appeal to the province in the last parliament, and tonight's renewed support for the Bloc was the result. Keep in mind that Harper once wrote that the only viable way to assemble a conservative coalition in Canada was to exclude Quebec. Given that the party has gained in pretty much every region besides Quebec in this election, is it possible that the province has left itself out in the cold?
Winner: Raymond Chan. The long-time Liberal incumbent was defeated in Richmond, but delivered a gracious and moving concession speech where he encouraged other immigrants to run for public office. It's not hard to see why Chan built up a solid support base of loyal Liberal activists in the riding. He'll be missed.

Election 2008: Most Awkward Moment?

Royce Koop — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:43:54 -0600

Awk-ward! Hoo boy, this exchange between a sneering Mike Duffy and a smirking Geoff Regan has to count as the most uncomfortable moment of the campaign. You have to fast-forward to the 04:40 point see it.

Dion and Layton on the Economy

Royce Koop — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:03:18 -0600

Since the English language debate, the media have essentially handed Stephane Dion and Jack Layton free passes to attack Harper for "not having a plan," despite that they are somewhat lacking in this respect themselves. This has led to some amusing episodes as the two leaders have tried to keep the spotlight focussed on Harper, and away from themselves. Failure to do so has led to disaster, at least for Dion.
But Layton has been the most reckless in attacking Harper. His plan to correct any coming recession is to discourage investment and expansion by abolishing Harper's corporate tax cuts and then sinking the money - plus any other necessary dollars - into a slew of new social programs. But never mind any wonky economic policy, because, claims Layton "I'll work until I drop to make sure that your homes, your pensions,
your mortgages and your jobs are protected as best as we are able from
this unfolding financial crisis."
That's right, Prime Minister Layton and his crack team of economic advisors are going save your job by brewing a pot of strong coffee and pulling an all-nighter at 24 Sussex. They'll even order in a pizza if they have to. And this says nothing about Layton's parallel between Harper and R.B. Bennett, thoroughly debunked by Neil Reynolds here. I've been impressed by Layton in this campaign, but he seems intent on convincing me that he really is pretty superficial.
The media have allowed Dion and Layton to get away with all this because their message seems to be crafted for media consumption. The Prairie Wrangler has done a good job of summarizing the feeling words associated with Harper that they have employed to justify this sort of superficial coverage: "insensitive," "show empathy," "feel our pain," "empathetic," and on and on and on. He then drives the point home: "He’s not your mom. He’s not your BFF. He’s the...Prime Minister.
Personally, I don’t need Harper to nestle me to his (admittedly ample)
bosom, stroke my hair and tell me everything is going to be alright."

Stephane Dion and Gotcha Politics

Royce Koop — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:41:15 -0600

My first thought after watching the clip is that it's hardly as bad as many are making it out to be. He's obviously tired and there's something about the question that is throwing him off. And he doesn't exactly come across as petulent or annoyed - I've seen much worse from Dion, especially in interviews from the 1990s. He actually comes off as somewhat likeable near the end of this video.
If CTV had told Dion that they wouldn't air the tape, then they should provide some rationalization for their actions beyond the disingenuous boilerplate "we owe it to Canadians" blah blah blah. Presumably when a politician asks if they can start over, they do so under the assumption that the media won't air the entire session. Jared Wesley is right: This is gotcha politics at its worst.
And there's something very McCain-esque in Harper's response. Obviously he felt that by giving the issue a mention, he could bolster its prominence. But that attitude betrays a lack of understanding of "new media" like Utube, despite that the prime minister is apparently surrounded by young hipsters. Harper could have said nothing, this video would still have gone viral and everyone would still have been watching it on their office computers the next day. All that Harper has done is opened himself up to Liberal counter-attacks.
That's not to say that Harper deserves condemnation for mentioning the video or that Dion deserves a free pass. The media have let Dion and Layton get away with the broadest generalities on the economy even as they have attacked Harper for not having a plan. Is it too much to expect a prospective prime minister to be able to coherently state what he would have done differently from Harper?

Joyce Murray: Not a Teacher, a Doer

Royce Koop — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 04:05:16 -0600

From a recent public forum at the University of British Columbia:
"Representing Vancouver Centre was NDP candidate (and UBC professor)
Michael Byers, along with Green Party candidate Adrienne Carr.
Meanwhile, representing Vancouver Quadra was Joyce Murray of the
Liberal Party and [UBC] Sauder law professor Deborah Meredith of the
Conservatives...
The debate’s opening topic was post-secondary education, tuition and
student debt. Byers, Meredith and Carr each spoke to their extensive
teaching credentials (Carr taught for 12 years at Langara College). But
it was Murray who landed the first jab of the afternoon by stating,
“I’m not a teacher, I’m a doer.”"
Congratulations, Joyce. In a riding full of UBC faculty, instructors, and students, you do indeed know how to strike the right note.

Preston Manning Weighs in... Why NOT to Vote for Dion

Royce Koop — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 07:05:25 -0600

Preston Manning has provided two highly...original reasons to not vote for Stephane Dion.
Reason Number 1: "Whereas Mr. Harper grew up in an accountant's household, Mr. Dion grew up in an academic's household."
Reason Number 2: "Whereas Mr. Harper studied economics at university (writing his master's thesis on monetary policy), Mr. Dion's degrees are in political science and sociology - adequate preparation for salon politics but not for economic crises."
So there you go. Vote accordingly.
Epilogue: It's just a little sad to see Mr. Manning - someone I used to have a great deal of respect for - belittling people who take liberal arts degrees in university in order to make a very, very weak argument. But oh well.

Harper, the campaign, and the economy

Royce Koop — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:14:27 -0600

I had planned on writing an entire post panning the Liberal campaign as lame; the keyhole approach of rooting through blog postings of party candidates and googling portions of Harper's speeches to detect plagiarism has likely reinforced more Canadians' cynicism about politics than it has drawn voters to the party. But now an issue - the economy - is battering the Conservative campaign, and it's completely a result of Harper's handling of the issue.
I should add a disclaimer that I am actually quite sympathetic to Harper's position on and particularly his campaign stance toward the economy. The worst thing about Canadian election campaigns is the parties' attempts to draw attention and create momentum by announcing slews of new programs and initiatives that simply aren't needed and that all entail new spending. Every Liberal campaign since the 1993 national election drove me batty because of this: The incumbent government suddenly discovering during a month-long campaign that new programs were desperately needed and the world would be engulfed in flames if the party wasn't re-elected to provide them. What's wrong with a campaign that promises, as Harper has, to stay the course?
Well, the problem is that Harper has come off as either unaware or unconcerned about the relaities of these (relatively) new economic problems for Canadians. Just as journalists need their daily campaign gainesburger, so too do voters. Harper seemed to know this in the 2006 campaign, but has forgotten this time around. That's a shame because Harper could have played on his image as a strong leader and economic manager to have turned the coming crisis to his advantage. Instead, he overestimated the trust that Canadians have in him.
The economy section of the debate could not have gone worse for Harper. The other four leaders hammered away for his unwillingness to address the issue, leaving the impression that they were all standing at the ready, plans-in-hand, to solve the economic crisis the moment they were elected. But what are their plans? A carbon tax or Layton's plan to reverse Harper's corporate tax cuts right at the outset of a recession? Thin gruel to be sure, and Harper fought back, but it was four-on-one and the defining moments of the debate for me turned out to be Layton's "under the sweater" comment (Harper doesn't have a plan) and Harper arguing that lost jobs in the manufacturing sector are unlikely to return (Harper doesn't care).
The solution may be for Harper to unveil a vast "strategy" or "plan" or "framework" or whatever other Paul Martinesque word you can think of to address the crisis. It might be too late, but it wouldn't hurt to try.

The Conservatives and Liberals as Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum?

Royce Koop — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 05:34:01 -0600

One of the perennial criticisms of Canada's two big brokerage parties (oftentimes levelled by NDP leaders) is that they're really tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum parties: They stand for essentially the same things and govern accordingly. The 1993 federal election was supposed to have changed all that, but alot of the speculation about Harper trying to construct a moderate, centrist party raised the spectre of a return to the days of Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum.
It's hard to believe that after watching the leader's debate. Particularly in the economy segment, Harper's positions were very different from the other parties and, I think, from past Conservative leaders. Could you really see Brian Mulroney saying, as Harper did, that once manufacturing jobs have been lost, they won't return? Joe Clark? Kim Campbell?
Some commentator (Paul Wells, I think) recently pointed out that many people in the media seem to think that our present Conservative Party is just the old P.C. Party come back to life following the 1993-2004 interregnum. This, of course, is not true: Most of the people with any power in the current party hail from the Reform/Alliance side of the family, not the P.C. side. The debate reminded me of this, and that the Liberal and Conservative parties, far from going back ot their tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum roles, remain ideologically distinctive.

Stephen Harper: Jiu Jitsu Master?

Royce Koop — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:07:03 -0600

Melanee and lots of other commentators have characterized Harper's recent defence of arts subsidies as an "amateur mistake." I'm not so sure.

I read Rick Perlstein's book Nixonland after Paul Wells' remarkable review of it. Wells is right: Harper today looks alot like Nixon a few decades ago. And one of Perlstein's insights about Nixon was that he was a master of "political jiu jitsu": the art of screwing up in order to tempt your opponents into attacking you on the the terms of your choosing. The result can oftentimes be to solidify loyalty amongst existing supporters. "Let them pounce on your 'mistake,' " Perlstein writes, "then garner pity as you wriggle free by making the enemy look unduly aggressive. Then you inspire a strange sort of protective love among voters whose wounds of resentment grow alongside your performance of being wounded. Your enemies appear to die of their own hand, never of your own. Which makes you stronger." And by laying out irresistible honey pots for his opponents, Nixon was able to maintain control over the debate even as those opponents were certain that he had long since lost it.

Another lesson from Nixon via Perlstein: It doesn't hurt to be hated by people, as long as they're the right people.

Back to Harper attacking Canadian artists. Harper has become a beacon of self-control, but his comments on arts galas yesterday were intemperate, almost a caricature of the old Harper - The Harper that Liberal partisans suspect is lurking behind the blue sweater and will emerge the moment he scores a majority government. "I think when ordinary working people come home," said Harper, "turn on the TV and see a gala of a bunch of people at, you know, a rich gala all subsidized by taxpayers claiming their subsidies aren't high enough, when they know those subsidies have actually gone up – I'm not sure that's something that resonates with ordinary people." The provocative comment was sure to provoke responses from the other leaders, and Dion and Layton rushed to take advantage of Harper's "gaffe" by defending Canadian artists and government subsidies.

The question is: Was Harper lashing out or was he engaging in the old political jiu jitsu? Well, that depends on whether you think that defending taxpayer-funded subsidies to the arts is a good selling point to working and middle class Canadians when Harper is out there promising tax cuts. Try to put yourself in the boots of that Canadian worker sitting on the couch some evening drinking beer when Dion comes on the TV screen defending these subsidies. Is he likely to trade a tax cut for more Cronenberg movies? Good grief, Harper even invoked the image of working Canadians sitting on the couch watching TV after a hard day's work.

Furthermore, in rushing to take advantage of Harper's gaffe, Dion - who delivered a jaw-dropping line about how artists have to rent their tuxedos and "beautful gowns" when they attend galas - managed to place himself squarely in the narrative that the Tories have been constructing of him: Elitist and out-of-touch with the needs of regular Canadians.

Maybe I'm wrong and this issue will hurt the Tories. But I think it's more likely that Dion walked into a trap set by Harper. In Dion's defence, the media's emphasis on gaffes, quick rebuttals, and snappy aggressive sound-bites may make it tough to avoid the sorts of traps laid by jiu jitsu masters like Harper.