High Praise from High Places

By Andrew Potter - Monday, March 2, 2009 at 2:37 PM - 19 Comments

While everyone is performing Kremlinology on Harper’s CNN interview, the much more interesting piece on Harper in the WSJ goes a-begging for solid analysis. Written by Mary O’Grady, the paper’s Americas columnist and based on an ed-board meeting Harper did there, it must have resulted in some serious high-fiving in the PMO. Start with the hed and subhed:

A Resolute Ally in the War on Terror
Canadians are with us in Afghanistan. We should be with them on free trade.

How do you like them apples? It gets better (for Harper) from there on in, as the conversation courses over Afghanistan, the future of NATO, US protectionism, and free trade with Columbia. After pushing for ongoing support for the regime in Columbia:

Then he adds what is the cornerstone of Harper foreign policy: “If you don’t support your friends,” he says, looking around the room and turning up the volume every so slightly, “you . . . are . . . not . . . going to have many friends.”

Not bad play at all for a Canadian PM. The article actually reminded me of another opinion piece written in the Journal about another prime minister. In the fall of 2002, Marie-Josee Kravis (wife of Henry, and sort-of Canadian) wrote a scathing piece about Chretien as a very unreliable partner in the war on terror. She also described him as an economic neo-Malthusian and an insecure anti-American.

It was, on the whole, a terribly-argued piece written by a very influential woman in a very influential publication. The headline on the column was ”Canada’s Schroeder” and it caused a fair amount of consternation in Canada, because the WSJ at the time was widely acknowledged as the morning read for Washington republicans.

Which leads me to ask: What is the most influential publication in Obama’s Washington? Does anyone have a sense of what papers or magazines (or, heck, blogs) have an influence over the new regime comparable to the one the Journal supposedly had during the Bush years?

Why this stimulus stuff will all soon be forgotten

By Paul Wells - Friday, January 30, 2009 at 1:00 PM - 79 Comments

Hello? I am here to lodge a complaint on behalf of the Campaign Reporters’ Guild under Section 2. (a) of the Grievance Manual, “Time Utterly Wasted on the Campaign Trail.”

I will have you know I was there in Winnipeg. I was there at the vegetable distribution plant. I was not alone. There had to be two dozen fully accredited campaign reporters there, on that sunny morning in the second week of September. We got up early. We dressed warmly because a vegetable distribution plant is basically a big refrigerator. We stood around with our cameras and our digital recorders, amid the carrots and the turnips, and waited for nearly an hour for Stephen Harper to show up and make precisely one promise.

Continue…

The Last (I Promise) Round of Comparisons of Canadian Politics to JEM

By Jaime Weinman - Monday, December 8, 2008 at 2:07 PM - 10 Comments

I won’t make a habit of this, I swear, but the parallels do go on and on. How can you possibly deny the appropriateness of these comparisons?

Jerrica Benton comes off as a wimpy music executive who has no ability to deal with modern media and is therefore constantly in danger of losing Starlight Records. But secretly, she’s actually a truly outrageous rock star.

Stéphane Dion comes off as a wimpy politician who has no ability to deal with modern media and is therefore constantly in danger of losing his leadership position. But secretly, he’s actually a pretty good and tough politician. Unfortunately, whereas Jerrica did not lose Starlight Records, Dion actually did lose his leadership position, the difference being that Dion did not have…

Continue…

Harper's Media Strategy, or Are You Pro-Rogue or Anti-Rogue?

By Jaime Weinman - Thursday, December 4, 2008 at 1:59 PM - 34 Comments

Dion’s already-legendary disaster with his response video has pretty much summed up his problems with media handling and message discipline. And Harper’s speeches last night and today, post-prorogation, provide a clue to his own methods. He’s often compared to Bush, and one of the reasons for this is that he shares an important part of the Bush approach: treat media and message discipline as the most important part of politics, rather than a sideline. Elements of this strategy include:

1. Find a talking point and stick with it. The Tories, after trying out a few other lines of attack, discovered that their best best was going with the “Separatist Coalition” talking point and the argument that the coalition would not be legitimate because it depended on the support of separatists. There may be something to this argument, but it’s not being treated as one good argument to support a larger argument; it’s become, really, the entire argument, repeated over and over again in various forms. This is a technique we saw frequently during the U.S. election in 2008, where the Republicans would pick up on something like “spread the wealth around” and turn that into the one and only issue for weeks. (The Democrats tried to do something similar with lines like “100 years in Iraq,” but they’re just not as good at it. I’m not sure why, but whenever Democrats and Liberals try to create a talking point, it usually bombs.) It doesn’t always work, as we’ve seen, but it is a popular strategy, and it’s a strategy that’s made for TV: by hammering on one thing, you guarantee that others will pick it up and repeat it on cable news, and before you know it, everybody’s arguing about whether this is a “Separatist Coalition” or not. And if people are arguing about your talking point, no matter who wins the argument, you’re winning because the argument is taking place on your turf.

2. Never admit mistakes, because that becomes a talking point for the other side. Some observers have been flabbergasted that even as he’s hastily reversing course on the things that got him in trouble in the first place, Harper never actually says that he’s made mistakes. This, again, is reminiscent of Bush, and media-wise, it’s a shrewd if cynical strategy. When you admit a mistake, that becomes not only a story, but the top story, and it becomes a universally-agreed-upon fact that you screwed up. If you don’t admit a mistake, then the story becomes a he-said/she-said thing: the opposition says X made a mistake, X says he didn’t. From that point of view, it’s better to reverse course while insisting that nothing’s changed at all. People may be exasperated with you for not admitting what everybody knows (you screwed up) but their exasperation will never be as big a story as “Prime Minister Says He Screwed Up” — and even if everybody knows it, that’s still better than if the news orgs are actually reporting it.

3. Call for “bipartisanship” but define it as the other guys doing what you want. To quote Kady: “He hopes the opposition parties will do the same – and he makes a not so veiled reference to some opposition members who would rather work *with* the government on the economy.” The idea of “bipartisanship” and “working together” is catnip to the TV talking heads; no concept is more highly valued. The way to exploit that is to redefine the terms so that your plan is the very definition of bipartisanship, and anyone who stands in the way is guilty of wanting to pull the country apart. It doesn’t necessarily convince anyone, but again, it allows the news-show arguments to proceed on your terms, rather than the opposition’s: if tonight’s top debate is “Are the opposition parties standing in the way of feel-good bipartisanship,” then Harper wins no matter what words get said.

Does this strategy always work? No. We’ve already seen that. (And if Harper were any kind of genius, he wouldn’t have gotten in this position in the first place.) But it sometimes works, especially in the short term. And that’s why, unless the Liberals learn some media skillz real fast, I have a feeling that the Conservatives will be able to use this hiatus to better advantage than the other side. This is a time for defining the debate and the talking points, and Harper can do that if nothing else.

Will the West revolt?

By Nancy Macdonald - Wednesday, December 3, 2008 at 7:01 PM - 51 Comments

Talk about an Alberta nightmare: Ottawa run by a Quebec Liberal with the support of the commies and the separatists. It has certainly got Western Canada all riled up. But what if this three-headed coalition actually gets control of the House? What if a Prime Minister from Alberta, whose Conservative party received 72 of Western Canada’s 92 seats in the recent election gets dumped—at a time when Alberta-B.C.’s economic strength is phenomenally strong and central Canada enters its grim decline? Will the West revolt?

Perhaps. Especially since the mere threat has sparked mass outrage in Alberta and B.C., where political and business leaders warn that it could trigger a whole new wave of discontent. “It’s not Liberals versus Conservatives, or left versus right: They’ve snookered an elected government from Western Canada, with the interests of Western Canada at heart,” says Barry Cooper, a political scientist at the University of Calgary. “This is a fight between central Canada and us.” From Calgary, it “looks like Ottawa and Quebec just want to screw the West—period,” he says. “The only thing these three clowns have in common is that they’re all from the St. Lawrence Valley.”

Last month, the Liberals were reduced to a single MP in Manitoba, a single MP in Saskatchewan and five in B.C., where they held 9 seats prior to the call. Their lack of depth means that the East Vancouver leftist stalwart, Libby Davies is—seriously—up for consideration for senior federal cabinet minister for B.C. That, in itself, is enough to make Vancouver Liberals squirm. Alberta would replace five Conservative cabinet ministers with the only non-Tory member in the entire province, new NDP MP Linda Duncan, who says no new oil sands projects should be approved until Ottawa develops full environmental and health effects policies.

According to a national poll released today by Angus Reid, support for maintaining the Conservative Party over the Liberal-NDP coalition is highest in Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. It also showed that distrust of the Bloc Québécois’s role in the federal government is highest in the West, with the largest majorities in Alberta (82 per cent), Manitoba-Saskatchewan (74 per cent) and B.C. (66 per cent).

So what’s a westerner to do? “Take a firm stance against the coming, NDP-led raid on the provincial economy,” says Cooper, who told Maclean’s that he was inundated with calls and emails yesterday from Alberta separatists who see this as a “golden opportunity” to advance the cause. “Tell your premier he cannot cooperate.” On that front, Manitoba’s NDP premier Gary Doer is keeping mum. Alberta premier Ed Stelmach wants the Tories to adjourn until the new year, to allow government the chance to bring forward a budget. So does B.C. premier Gordon Campbell, who believes a coalition government is a risky leap of faith, that, if it fails, will make Canada’s economic crisis significantly worse. And Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall is focusing his criticism on the Liberal and NDP leaders for signing an accord supported by the Bloc.

For the West—which takes a relatively dim view of an auto-sector bailout—the stakes are high. Unreasonably tough emissions laws, higher equalization payments, carbon taxes, federal development taxes, NEP II—all this and more may lie ahead, says Cooper, who adds that both Layton and Dion threaten the oil sands, at present, the country’s main economic driver. “When there’s money piled up, people are less cantakerous,” says Paul Thomas, a political scientist at the University of Manitoba. “But regional grievances are amplified by economic hard times.” And there are nothing but dark days ahead.

It's the flag debate

By John Geddes - Wednesday, December 3, 2008 at 2:53 PM - 28 Comments

Old-timers have commented that the vitriolic climate in the House this week rivals the 1964 Flag Debate, in which Lester Pearson and John Diefenbaker slugged it out. Actually, this is turning into another sort of flag debate.

Continue…

Irony-free headlines from the recent past

By Martin Patriquin - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 7:11 PM - 17 Comments

In honour of the current goings on in Ottawa, in which the Liberals and the NDP are planning to form a coalition government with the tacit approval of the Bloc Québécois, DMA humbly presents, without comment, a few choice headlines from the run up to the 2006 federal election–AKA, the last time Canada underwent a ‘national unity crisis.’

Harper risks ‘getting into bed’ with Bloc: Layton

The Whitehorse Star – April 28, 2005 

Liberal-NDP marriage to be shortlived?

Cornwall Standard-Freeholder (ON) – April 29, 2005

Leaders blast others’ political promiscuity: Who’s sleeping with whom: parties trade barbs over political bedfellows

Sudbury Star (ON) - Canada, Friday, April 29, 2005

The unofficial federal election campaign has turned downright racy with charges of political promiscuity and sleeping with the enemy.

[...]

Prime Minister Paul Martin and NDP Leader Jack Layton used separate stops half-a-country apart Thursday to deliver a common message: the Conservatives are in bed with the separatists in a fickle attempt to bring down the minority Liberal government.

Jack Layton says party won’t prop up Liberals in possible confidence motion

Timmins Daily Press (ON) - Tuesday, November 8, 2005

Martin, Harper playing patriot games

[...]

[Paul] Martin, however, barely broke stride when he reached a rally in Quebec City, where he once again conjured the image of an alliance between Harper and Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe.

What kind of exchange? Warm!

By Paul Wells - Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 4:35 PM - 19 Comments

Emailed to Ottawa reporters a minute ago:

Read-out of Call between Prime Minister Harper and President-elect Obama

On Thursday November 6, Prime Minister Stephen Harper spoke to President-elect Obama to congratulate him on winning the US Presidential election.

In a warm exchange, the two leaders emphasized that there could be no closer friends and allies and vowed to maintain and further build upon this strong relationship.

They touched on the G20 Leaders’ Summit in Washington on November 15, 2008 and its importance for addressing the global financial crisis.

The Prime Minister and the President-elect agreed to talk again in the near future.

Shaking

By John Geddes - Friday, October 10, 2008 at 3:11 PM - 0 Comments

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s bus convoy pulls in for an afternoon rally at a Kitchener, Ont., Conservative candidate’s storefront headquarters. It’s in a strip mall anchored by the winning combination of Stop ‘n’ Cash cheque cashing and The Bettor Club off-track betting.

Continue…

Tough talk

By John Geddes - Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 7:54 PM - 0 Comments

There was a darkening in Stephen Harper’s rhetoric today. The line that popped in his speech to a rally in Winnipeg early this evening was this: “If you are worried about tough times then elect a government that can make tough decisions.”

So it’s tough times we’re worried about after all. That’s some distance from his suggestion a week ago that Canadians weren’t letting a mere stock market problem make them anxious about losing their jobs or homes.

Continue…

Health care: it's all about the economy

By John Geddes - Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 12:48 PM - 3 Comments

Polls consistently show that health care is one of the top two or three concerns of Canadians. Yet it has barely registered in this campaign.

Stephen Harper announced a couple more health initiatives in Vancouver today: $10 million over two years to support a lung disease strategy that combines health and environmental policy; and $15 million for a four-year study of frightening neurological diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Yesterday, he pledged money to lure back Canadian docs practicing abroad, recruit and train more nurses, and pay for 50 new residency slots in teaching hospitals.

Unspectacular but solid stuff, slated for the closing days of the campaign back before anybody knew economic turmoil would dominate the race. Harper tacitly acknowledged he’s got no hope of cutting through the cacophony surrounding the financial-market crisis with anything as mundane as combating horrible illnesses. Closing his remarks on health policy, he said: “Of course, to carry it out and to continue making progress, we need to protect our economy.”

In other words, “And now, back to the only story anybody cares to talk about.”

Aloha, voters

By John Geddes - Wednesday, October 8, 2008 at 10:54 PM - 4 Comments

At about 7:15 p.m., Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a few lines into his stump speech, to a ballroom packed with Tories at Vancouver’s Westin Bayshore, just a short stroll up the seawall from Stanley Park, when an intermittent fire alarm begins to sound.

Continue…

Not a campaign event, we hope

By John Geddes - Wednesday, October 8, 2008 at 8:43 PM - 6 Comments

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will talk to the media tomorrow morning at 8 a.m. on Parliament Hill about process surrounding meetings with the International Monetary Fund and G7 countries. Something to do with the spot of bother on the stock exchanges. And the banks. And the jobs outlook.

Continue…

Stocks down (not what you think)

By John Geddes - Wednesday, October 8, 2008 at 1:09 PM - 2 Comments

Stephen Harper is about to speak to a smallish Tory crowd at the Coast Victoria Harbourside Hotel and Marina. The view here on this sunny day couldn’t be better. Just below the hotel where he’s speaking is the office of Orca Spirit Adventures whale watching company. (A few years back, I spent a memorable day on one of their boats, which I can see docked from where I’m writing.)

The location is important, given that today’s Victoria Times-Colonist features a front page story under the headline “Killer whales threatened by salmon shortage.” Salmon stocks are down, the whales aren’t getting enough to eat, and they are “losing blubber and developing strange behavioural patterns.”

Stock markets will bounce back, eventually. We know that, no matter how worried we get. But fish stocks? They have a way of collapsing permanently. In this case, the black and white whales would go with them. It would be helpful to know what the Fisheries and Oceans department has to say about today’s news in the local paper, which is based on reports from independent scientists.

But the Times-Colonist tells us that a DFO official said the federal government’s experts are not granting interviews during the election campaign. This strikes me as absurd. By the way, the Prime Minister will be talking about banks today.

Harper and the oddsmakers

By Colin Campbell - Wednesday, October 8, 2008 at 11:35 AM - 2 Comments

Over at the always interesting Intrade predictions market (where people can buy contracts to bet on the outcomes of things like political races), Stephen Harper and the Conservatives’ stock has been sinking over the past week. The site once put Harper’s chances of winning at almost 98 per cent. Yesterday, it was down to 85 percent. Still, a very healthy lead over the Liberals, who have a 15 per cent chance of winning, according to the site. 

More interesting, perhaps, is the value of contracts being bet on the likelihood of a minority government. They’re soaring.  A week ago, the odds were under 60 per cent. Today, they’re at 80 per cent. 

Maybe mom should scoop some under-valued stocks

By John Geddes - Tuesday, October 7, 2008 at 6:59 PM - 7 Comments

After a rather cool message delivered in the unsteadily beating financial heart of Toronto today, the Prime Minister tried for a warmer tone at an evening rally in an airplane hanger in Hamilton.

“Canadians are worried right now, those worries are understandable,” he told a throng of Tory faithful. “My mother is with my kids tonight. I’m sure she’s worrying about her savings. I worry about my kids’ future. That’s why we’re in this—that’s why we’re putting ourselves on the line in this election.”
Continue…

Broker-in-Chief

By John Geddes - Tuesday, October 7, 2008 at 6:01 PM - 26 Comments

Stephen Harper was probably smart not to try feigning an emotional response today over the state of the economy. The Prime Minister would have looked phony.

But did he really need to talk in Toronto like a broker trying to coax a reluctant dentist into risking a few bucks on a hot tip in a bear market?

“I’m not the most emotionally expressive guy, but I understand, I understand in my own family, that people are pretty shocked by developments in the stock market,” he told reporters in Toronto.

“Look,” he went on, “the main thing the government has to do in a time like this is not panic. A lot of people out there are panicking. I think there are probably some great buying opportunities emerging on the stock market as a consequence of all this panic.”

But the market churn, though it’s pretty scary, isn’t really the root worry of most Canadians. What’s got people spooked is the notion that it’s their mutual funds now, but might be their jobs soon. The PM says he understands, but not if he really thinks its about the TSX. It’s about what comes next.

Start fizzy, end flat?

By John Geddes - Friday, October 3, 2008 at 1:32 PM - 0 Comments

What is it about starting a federal election as the front runner? Parties that enjoy a lead at the outset almost always seem to fade at bit. In the past four elections the pre-campaign top party drifted down anywhere from two to six points by election day.

The current Conservatives, who once looked to be climbing slowly but surely toward a majority, now seem to be in danger of continuing the pattern. According to Ekos today, to pluck one poll among many, the Tories now stand at 36 per cent, down from 38 per cent in the last pre-writ Ekos poll.

The only exception to this rule in the past 15 federal elections came in 1974, when Trudeau’s Liberals rose to 43 per cent on election day from 40 per cent in the last pre-campaign survey.

I’ve written elsewhere that I see similarities between the ‘74 Liberal campaign and the ‘08 Tory one, so maybe there’s reason to imagine Stephen Harper beating the front-runner’s curse.

Screwy Math Question

By Martin Patriquin - Thursday, October 2, 2008 at 2:34 PM - 0 Comments

For Harper, what’s better than two of your opponents ganging up on you?

Four of your opponents ganging up on you.

It makes so much sense, grasshopper.

A prayer for Owen Lippert

By John Geddes - Tuesday, September 30, 2008 at 4:38 PM - 28 Comments

“We’re going to put an end to the culture of entitlement, and replace it with a culture centered on accountability,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper, April 20, 2006.

But who is accountable for what a member of Parliament says in the House of Commons?

No drama, mate

By John Geddes - Tuesday, September 30, 2008 at 12:53 PM - 9 Comments

Remarks from a Conservative party source, who cannot be named, suggest the party’s borrowings from Australian political allies may continue to present moment. “Steve’s spewin’ about the way this Bob Rae bloke’s having a lend of you,” said the strategist. “Wish he’d rack off. We’d best get back to the financial meltdown thingo, or the whole economy’s going to cark it.”

Morning memo: September 30 – Harper borrows a phrase, Dion channels his inner leader, and May is no pretender.

By Philippe Gohier - Tuesday, September 30, 2008 at 10:28 AM - 6 Comments

BEST PHOTO:

POLL OF THE DAY:

A surprisingly consistent picture emerged from yesterday’s tracking polls. Nanos, Harris-Decima and Ekos all have the Conservatives leading the Liberals by either 8 or ten points, with the NDP a further six or seven points behind.

(Nanos / Harris-Decima / Ekos)

Conservatives: 36% / 36% / 34%

Liberals: 26% / 26% / 26%

NDP: 20% / 19% / 20%

Greens: 9% / 9% / 10%

Bloc Québécois: 9% / 8% / 10%

Continue…

"But nothing for the parents of fat, lazy, tone-deaf and untalented kids"

By Andrew Potter - Monday, September 29, 2008 at 10:40 AM - 23 Comments

Harper’s curious brand of conservatism heads inexorably towards its obvious conclusion:

Canwest News Service
OTTAWA — Stephen Harper promised $380-million worth of tax credits Monday for parents with young children. The Conservative leader said that, if re-elected, his government would give a new tax break for children enrolled in arts activities and would extend tax credits for children’s sports programs and for programs that help families save for a child’s post-secondary education.

A new Children’s Arts Tax Credit would allow families to deduct up to $500 per year for the cost of enrolling in arts programs from one parent’s taxable income.

Got Senate Reform if You Want It

By Andrew Potter - Sunday, September 28, 2008 at 10:21 PM - 14 Comments

One of the reasons I supported Harper’s decision to abandon the fixed election date and drop the writ was that I took semi-seriously the claim, floated by some Tory insiders, that the prime minister was keen to proceed with his plan to reform the Senate. Since Bill C-20 was’t really going anywhere, the idea was to call an election and gain a renewed mandate for Senate reform.

So much for that.

Still, perhaps expecting that Harper might actually make this election about something, the IRPP has released a timely paper on Senate reform by UBC researcher Campbell Sharman, Political Legitimacy for an Appointed Senate.

All other considerations aside, Sharman’s paper is an excellent sketch of the Senate-reform landscape.

Continue…