Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

And again, it comes down to fundraising and organization.

by Paul Wells on Friday, November 28, 2008 6:50pm - 97 Comments

“We have so much money,” a Harper aide would admit at the end of the [2006] campaign’s first week, shaking his head in amazement. “We have shitloads of money. Way more than we can spend in a campaign. In a way we wouldn’t have minded Martin’s preferred schedule, which was to go in February, because we could have run this huge pre-writ campaign” — a blitz of television, radio, and newspaper ads, and direct mail, all of it unregulated by Elections Canada spending limits because it pre-dated the dropping of the writ.

Right Side Up, everyone’s favourite Christmas gift

When Mom says no, ask Dad. It’s a universal instinct. When Stephen Harper lost Belinda Stronach he paid closer attention to Chuck Cadman. When Vancouver wouldn’t give the Conservatives an MP Harper reached out to David Emerson. And now it happens again: He cannot win this new confrontation in the Commons. So he has bought himself another week — to reach outside the Commons to the country.

And outside the Commons, the Conservative war chest and tool kit are formidable. This will be one of the most astonishing weeks in the history of Canadian politics.

What follows is based on six years of watching Harper as a political leader, not on fresh reporting. But I think it’s reasonable to assume that email will go out this weekend soliciting fresh donations from hundreds of thousands of Conservative supporters. Direct-mail appeals (“Stéphane Dion: Not a Democrat”), Web ads, broadcast and print buys, messaging for Conservative bloggers and for commenters on other blogs, talking points for talk-radio callers and the party’s teevee spokesmen — that will only be part of it. The messaging will be concentrated against the most vulnerable MPs: If you’re a Liberal or a New Democrat who won narrowly over the Conservative in your riding, you can expect your life to be hell, beginning tonight. There could be public “We Want Our Canada Back” rallies, including probably a big one on the Hill (“Send Ottawa A Message From the Real Canada”) by mid-week. It could be massive.

At every step, the Conservatives are better funded, more experienced at this sort of thing, and a lot more scared, and therefore more motivated, than their opponents. This controversy began with Harper recognizing his advantage in grassroots fundraising and organizing and seeking to consolidate it. It will end with Harper using that advantage to the hilt.

How will it all end? Harper’s crystal ball may be broken, but the battery in mine is dead. I’ll find out when the rest of you do, somewhere between now and Dec. 8.

Bookmark and Share
  • herringchoker

    Its about time for Frank McKenna to announce he’s interested in the leader’s job again.

  • http://kitchenersown.blogspot.com/ Lord Kitchener’s Own

    This comment was up there a bit by Ben Hicks, but I loved it and need to comment. He mentioned that the potential coalition involved: “the dark voodoo of a constitutional loophole

    I absolutely LOVE that comment and that somehow the notion that our government consists of whoever can command a majority of the House of Commons is now being referred to as a “constitutional loophole”.

    It’s like calling voting a “procedural technicality”.

    As though our government consisting of the group that can command a majority of the House is just some anachronism no one’s gotten around to fixing yet. Like the Fathers of Confederation just forgot to mention that the formation of a government was supposed to be solely at the discretion of the leader of the largest party.

    Is it that conservatives really don’t understand the fundamental nature of our institutions, or is it just that they don’t care?

  • Dennis F

    LKO, did the constitutionality of David Emerson’s jump to the Tories in any way mitigate the criticism of it from just about everyone in the country, especially Liberal and NDP MP’s?

  • madeyoulook

    Is it that conservatives really don’t understand the fundamental nature of our institutions, or is it just that they don’t care?

    Classy over-generalization there, LKO. That would be like me saying all liberals have no clue when some assert that withdrawing the lazy access to free cash for political parties is a full-on assault on democracy. Only the morons spouting that nonsense have no clue, not all liberals.

    You might want to restrict your disdain for those who have earned it.

  • Chris

    Parliamentary precedent is that the party that wins the most seats forms the government. If all our erstewhile constitutional scholars who want to point out “that there is nothing stopping the opposition for replacing the government with a different government” might want to consider the blow back with respect to twarting the will of the people in a recent election in seeking to change the duly elected government a month later.

    Secondly, whether the Governor General after the King Byng affair has any real mandate to deny a request by the Prime Minister for a dissolution is a live question. The negative outcry over the use of the Governor General’s discretion has resulted in those powers becoming no more than ceremonial in nature. How do those on the Liberal side of the fence think the country would take a second election this year? Beyond that – how would the Liberal party pay for another election campaign this year?

  • T. Thwim

    Chris, do you mean the blow-back from the 62% that wanted someone *other* than the conservatives?

  • BCer, you know, the real west

    What the NDP and Libs need to do right now is offer a directed donation offer on their websites. I would be happy to slide them both some cash if it was used to for ads to counter the CPC lies, but for their general revenue, not so much.

  • BCer, you know, the real west

    Lord Kitchener’s Own says:
    “I absolutely LOVE that comment and that somehow the notion that our government consists of whoever can command a majority of the House of Commons is now being referred to as a “constitutional loophole”.

    It’s like calling voting a “procedural technicality”.”

    Excellent, and illustrates that we have done a dismal job teaching people how our parliamentary system works, including our PM.

  • kody

    If the notion of Jack, Dion and Duceppe running our country, was a viable option in the last election, Harper would have gained a supermajority.

    It is now front and center. There will be a Harper supermajority within the next year,

    either through an immediate election the GG decides to hold in the near future, or

    following the crumbling of this grand coalition which most surely will fall apart within six months.

    And so much for a serious period of reflection and renewal the Libs were promising (and badly needed). A week into the new session, before they have a policy convention or even a leader and they’re already clamoring for the reins of government.

    Is there anyone left in the Liberal party who’s willing to look beyond the next week for a vision?

  • T. Thwim

    Blame Harper, kody. If he hadn’t forced the Liberals and NDP into this position, say by putting a multi-year timeline on the public subisidy cuts, they wouldn’t have figured out that they can get together and oust him.

    So when you’re looking at Jack Layton, Finance Minister, remember that it was Stephen Harper’s playing games instead of governing that caused it.

  • Terry

    I just donated $35 to the Conservative Party and renewed my membership.

    I’d donate more, but I’m not a rich man. How many conservatives commentators are donating money as well? How many left of center people will donate this week, and how much?

    Sound off.

  • doug

    The opposition parties have a perfect right to form a government. That’s the way our system works. We elect parliaments, not governments — governments are formed from parliament. It is not a “loophole” — that’s the essence of the system.

    I don’t think Canadian’s will be upset by a change of government without an election. It has happened before, after all. But they will punish failure. If the coalition craps out in a few months, and we have another election, then the Conservatives (under a new leader) will be well-positioned to finally gain a majority.

  • JK
  • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

    Personally, I think the Cons need to use some of their money and buy 10 minutes of tv time at 8 pm and have Harper explain what his government is doing right now to help the economy. This collection of Cons are rather dire at presenting their arguments/positions. The Cons make lots of assertions but never an argument. I understand they don’t like our liberal msm, neither do I sometimes, but it is what it is. They have to get their message out and they aren’t.

    In 10 minutes, Harper can talk about the measures implemented in the last budget, but that no one remembers, that are due to take effect over the next year.

    Harper should explain what the Cons proposed a couple of days ago in terms of if people are hurting, than parties should feel pain as well. I think the Cons should have reduced MP salaries a few days ago as well as party funding but that’s neither here nor there at the moment.

    Harper should say they plan to introduce some stimulus spending after the Americans decide what they are doing because there’s no point in getting ahead of the US.

    And to finish his talk, Harper should talk about PM Dion, Finance Minister Layton and Foreign Affairs Minister Duceppe and let people think about if they like that idea or not.

    And I don’t know if Harper is capable of it but he should do his speech in normal language without taking potshots at oppo or scare tactics or use language like ‘screw everybody’ and think that’s an argument.

  • Tom

    Historical parallels are not relevant for numerous reasons and being “constitutionally” correct ignors the political realities that exists in Canada and the ramifications of over turning an election barely days into its mandate. These percentages of support ignors the fact that no party exacted a majority so its blissful wishful thinking that Bloc, Lib and NDP votes are interchangable or are a collective force unto themselves, they most assurdily didn’t aquire those votes under that banner and in fact vehemently denied any alliance in asking for peoples support. If they believe they are saving Canada then their first act upon securing power is to ask the people for a mandate to legitimize their move so soon after being defeated independently. Three hundred million you say is too much , wasted expense, sad that our democracy has such low support ,that it now bears a price tag.
    The legitamacy of this coalition fails in one area and would be of concern to all Federalists of all stripes that it exists only if it feeds the needs perceived by the Bloc for its support. This unholy alliance has made me so concerned I’ve forwarded my 1100.00 to the Conservative Party yesterday and they will get another from both my wife and I in the New Year. I will now campaign amongest my friends outlining my concerns to have them forward support as well, should be good for 100,000.00 or more I’m sure.

  • Chris

    I’m simply pointing out that current precedent is strongly indicative of the fact that if the opposition parties vote non-confidence we could be going to polls again. The Prime Minister is entitled to ask for a disolution and the diminishing of the Governor General’s powers suggests that he’s likely to get it.

  • Marty

    I’m sure somebody here knows….for how long have the parties gotten money for each vote received?
    Has this been around for a long time or is it something relatively recent? I don’t have any problem with this by the way. If I vote Lib or Conservative or NDP and $1.75 goes to the party I vote for. Big Deal.

    And I don’t have a problem with a coalition gov’t. Last election I joined the 62% of voters who didn’t want the Harper party to get a majority. Election before that I voted for Harper due to his promise not to change the way Income Trusts were taxed (we know how he kept his word on that one-he didn’t). Anyway…let the opposition form a coalition, it is a democratic country, and go for it. It will either work or it won’t and we will see the consequences next election.

  • Marty

    “By the way, those donations from private donors are tax deductible to the tune of 75 per cent for a donation up to $400, 50 per cent for the next $350, and 33 1/3 per cent for the amount from $750 up to $1,100. How much does this cost the taxpayer?”

    Good question. So if sometime donates $400 to the Cons-taxpayers are actually paying $300.
    Didn’t hear Mr. Harper attacking this subsidy. Did anyone else?

  • Brad Sallows

    He didn’t. Propose attacking it to the Liberals and NDP. Presumably they will go along, right?

  • paulb

    This could be fun. Watching the liberals and ndp blowing themselves up will be spectacular. Do not ever underestimate the power of ads. They will be skewered.

    I love the smell of napalm in the morning

  • Gustav

    “This will be one of the most astonishing weeks in the history of Canadian politics.”

    Really?

    You oughta get out more.

  • Aizlynne

    I haven’t heard one of you mention that the $1.95 that Harper wants removed is the final nail in the coffin legacy of Chretien and his “solution” to scrub free the stain of Adscam. While some of you have conveniently forgotten Adscam, a lot of us haven’t.

    And would someone please produce a list of all these so-called expert economists that are stating Flaherty is cookin the books and that huge bailouts and subsidies are necessary. Prove it.

From Macleans