About those rumours

Okay. Now that Norman Spector and Andrew Cohen have decided to write about the rumours, maybe it's time to have a frank chat about this whole  issue. (Update: The Globe has pulled Spector's blog post, but it is reprinted here if you want to know what I'm nattering on about.) 

First, it's maybe worth drawing attention to a blog I wrote in September, about some things we can do without here on Parliament Hill. See point #9. 

Reporting a rumour is not journalism. It's called gossip, and in this case, a malicious strain of it. It's what people used to bring home from the beauty salon, circa the 1950s, when messages got mangled in the din of the hairdryers.

Journalism involves investigating tips or questions, determining their accuracy, and telling the public the facts.  The difference between Misters Spector and Cohen is that they seem to have taken a little shortcut there, or worse, done it backwards. They've reported the rumour and asked other people  to investigate. I would hope that Mr. Cohen is not teaching young would-be journalists to do the same. Apart from being supremely unfair, it's also just plain lazy. 

I'm going to put down in writing here what we say to everyone who's been offering us advice for the last THREE YEARS about this rumour. 

* Every media organization has looked into this story. Every one of our bosses wants us to be first with this story if it's true.  Some organizations have gone to some lengths with their reporting resources. Problem: not a shred of evidence. Not one. 

* Media folks don't conspire together. We compete. We certainly don't conspire to help the PMO and most of us aren't particularly afraid of the PMO either. The idea that we'd all meet, negotiate to keep something secret is beyond ridiculous. 

* This story seems to be more in circulation in Toronto than it is in Ottawa.  During some weeks over the last THREE YEARS (have I mentioned that?), usually after the Harpers have been seen together in public, we got dozens of "tips"   from people who heard from someone else who heard it from someone else who absolutely knows it's true because it came from the RCMP. (Yes, it usually ends with the RCMP or a policeman.)  I estimate, collectively, that the Star has been notified about this rumour at least several  hundred times in the past, yes, three years.  I know other media outlets in Ottawa who would make the same estimate. It is not our practice to throw tips like this in the garbage, though after the first couple of hundred, I think we're tempted. 

* At one point in 2009, I'm told that the entire Liberal caucus was informed that the announcement of a separation was coming that very day, and MPs were ordered to say nothing. Of course, it was just another bit of gossip gone wild. We, uh, didn't report that either. Because *it wasn't true.* We're old-fashioned that way. If we reported every rumour that wasn't true or couldn't be proved, we wouldn't have enough room for real news. Which apparently folks out there want. 

* Interestingly, there are elements of this rumour that have morphed into rehashed versions of the Trudeau marriage breakup. Some of the details are the same, which is probably evidence that people are pretty much prepared to turn this story into whatever they want it to be.  The virulence of this rumour is also similar to the ones about the Mulroney marriage (also not true) and allegations that Mulroney had started drinking again in the early 1990s (also not true.)  We get this stuff all the time here in Ottawa. 

* I'm intrigued by how many people want to believe this story. Go to Google and tap in the name of the Prime Minister's wife. Look at the suggested searches, and how many people have done them. Staggering.  You'd think that with that much interest, someone over the last few years would have been able to prove something. Nada. Nothing.  One has to ask oneself why people are so hungry to believe it. I don't know the answer to that. But I do find it interesting. 

We in the media should be always up for criticism and suggestions. But this particular tip has run its course.  I'll say it again, as I said in September -- unless you have evidence or made the effort to find it, you should probably keep your gossip to yourself or under an old-fashioned hairdryer, where it belongs.   

Knock knock

In the new year, Nigel Wright will take over as chief of staff in the Prime Minister's Office. Judging from the following email chain  (from much earlier this year)  Mr.  Wright might want to note that the office culture frowns on humour. And absolutely no jokes about plumbing failure. (Perhaps a hangover from Watergate?)

See below:

From: Administration Division, Division de l'administration
To: PMOALL; PCO-BCP
Cc: Laberge, Jacques; Larocque, Guylaine; Brisebois, Marina; Steinberg, Alison
Sent: Fri Feb 26 14:21:19 2010
Subject: Temporary closure of men's showers - Langevin Building / Fermeture temporaire des douches des hommes - Edifice Langevin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Location Langevin Building Men’s shower area Upper Basement   Subject  Water Damage Investigation & Repair   Date  Monday, March 1st to Friday, March 19th, 2010   Activity  Public Works Government Services Canada (PWGSC) will be closing the men’s shower area in the upper basement of the Langevin building to investigate and repair the water damage.   Impact on Occupants  Only men’s shower area will be closed, all other areas will remain operational to occupants for the duration of the repairs.   Contractor   MVC Interior System Inc will complete the work on behalf of PWGSC.   Thank you for your cooperation     The Administration Division             ******* From: Soudas, Dimitri Sent: February 26, 2010 2:29 PM To: Administration Division, Division de l'administration; PMOALL; PCO-BCP Cc: Laberge, Jacques; Larocque, Guylaine; Brisebois, Marina; Steinberg, Alison Subject: Re: Temporary closure of men's showers - Langevin Building / Fermeture temporaire des douches des hommes - Edifice Langevin   Somebody unlock the door. I'm stuck inside. Dimitri N. Soudas Associate Director | Press Secretary Directeur associé | Attaché de presse Communications Prime Minister's Office Cabinet du Premier ministre **********   From: Cyrenne, Rick Sent: February 26, 2010 2:39 PM To: Soudas, Dimitri; Administration Division, Division de l'administration; PMOALL; PCO-BCP Cc: Laberge, Jacques; Larocque, Guylaine; Brisebois, Marina; Steinberg, Alison Subject: RE: Temporary closure of men's showers - Langevin Building / Fermeture temporaire des douches des hommes - Edifice Langevin   Hello everybody   Just spoke to Mr Soudas.  He is fine and was simply joking.   Mike Pellerin   Chief of Accomodations

Never mind how many wise men there were.

One of the biggest political stories of 2010 was the surprise uproar over the census and the Canadian Council on Social Development reminds us today, in a news release,  of the Christmas connection to the census. From the release:

The Christmas story began with Mary and Joseph travelling from Nazareth to Bethlehem for the census (“In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. And everyone went to their own town to register. So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem in the town... of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child………..” Luke 2:1-5). There is no record of either Joseph or Mary objecting to the Census as intrusive. To date, Maxime Bernier has not been able to find their email, and they are not among the three complainants identified by the Privacy Commissioner (the Wise Men, perhaps?)

To honour this holiday connection, the CCSD has also written up some "census carols" to be sung at Dundas Square this week on Wednesday at 5:30. Here are the rewritten lyrics:

 

Reinstate the Long Form Census
to the tune of “Deck the Halls”

Reinstate the Long Form Census,
Fa la la la la la la la
Its demise is really senseless,
Fa la la la la la la la
Give us back this vital data
Fa la la la la la la la
Bring it back right now, not later.
Fa la la la la la la la.

Hear the raging statisticians
Fa la la la la la la la
Stating all our hopes and wishes
Fa la la la la la la la
Many groups across our nation
Fa la la la la la la la
Join to stop this devastation
Fa la la la la la la la

Those from lower social classes
Fa la la la la la la la
Fear the new one will bypass us
Fa la la la la la la la
Sing we now in protestation
Fa la la la la la la la
Speaking out to save our nation
Fa la la la la la la la!

Hark the Statisticians Sing
to the tune of ‘Hark the Herald Angels Sing’

Hark the Statisticians sing
Give us back that census thing
Don’t destroy the data source
That we use to chart our course.

Joyful if it is returned
From its data much we’ve learned
It has been around since when
Christ was born in Bethlehem.

Hark the Statisticians sing
Don’t listen to the far right wing!

Many want it now restored
Province, village, town and Board
Rural, urban, poor and rich,
Think to lose it is a shame

Cancelled almost secretly
For no reason clear to see
Many mourn this tragic loss
Blaming Harper – he’s the boss!

Hark, the statisticians sing
Please reinstate the Census thing!

Census Forms
to the tune of ‘Jingle Bells’

Filling out the form
On a long form census day
Takes ‘bout half an hour
Glad to have my say

Don’t find it intrudes
Isn’t worth the fuss
The information it provides
Benefits all of us

Census forms, census forms
Glad to have my say!
It’s a thing we really need
Bring back our census day!

Census forms, census forms
Glad to have our say
It’s a part of Canada
Please don’t take it away!

Need the whole long form
More than a survey
Counts us every one
No one goes astray
Things that we all need
The census helps us get
If we can just volunteer
Some needs will go unmet.

Census forms, census forms
Glad to have my say
It’s a part of Canada
Please don’t take it away!

Stevie Baby
to the tune of “Santa Baby”

Stevie Baby, just slip a census under the tree, for me.
Been an awful good count,
Stevie Baby, so make it mandatory again.

Stevie Baby, a data source that we know is true -- like you!
We’ll wait till it returns,
Stevie baby, so make it mandatory again.

Though its now your nemesis
Think of all the fellas that it’s gonna miss
Next year could be twice as good,
If you’d restore the Census list!

Stevie baby
We want a count on which we can count -- a fount.

Information we need, Stevie baby,
So make it mandatory again.

Stevie honey
One little thing we really need, indeed.
Data that we can mine, Stevie Baby,
So make it mandatory again.

Stevie cutie
Don’t think this is one little thing – we sing!
Sign your x on the line, Stevie cutie,
And make it mandatory again.

Please maintain this data source
With some gentle suasion, just to reinforce.
You don’t need to keep jail time
Make it just a minor crime!

Stevie baby
Won’t complete your “Household Survey” – no way!
It’s a failed substitute,
Stevie baby, so make it mandatory again.
Make it mandatory again
Tory, tonight!

We Need a Long Form Census
to the tune “We Need a Little Christmas” from 'Mame'

Please stop this folly
Bring back the form before you hurt our nation more
Fill out the questions
We may be losing things we never missed before now

Cause we need the long form Census
Right this very minute
Joyous statisticians, data without limits

Yes we need the long form census
Right this very minute
Its cancellation caused a flurry
That Stephen Harper makes us worry

So climb off your high horse
Reverse the dumbest thing we’ve seen you do in years
Don’t be a fruitcake
It’s time you faced the facts, to public pressure please bow!

For we’ve grown a little smarter
Grown a little older
Grown a lot more vocal
Grown a whole lot bolder

And we need a lot more data
‘Bout every householder.
We need the long form census now!

Good King Censusless
to the tune of “Good King Wenceslas”

Good King Censusless looked out
On the cottage season.
With the sunshine all about
Warm and crisp and even.
Everyone was drinking beer
Feeling great elation.
How could he disrupt the cheer
breaking cross the nation?

“Mr Clement, good MP,
If you knowst it, telling,
Yonder voter, who is he
Tory ranks not swelling?”
“Sire, a man I once knew long
Loathed the census taking
If you could remove this wrong
You’d be nation-making.”

“Make it so”, he said at once
With no consultation,
“Though I may be thought a dunce
Causing consternation.”
Statistician would not toast
His part in this madness.
He would rather quit his post
Causing him much sadness.

Harper bellowed “What a fool!
Get that man to focus!
He should know that math’s not cool,
Stats are hocus pocus.”
Statistician stood his ground
In the public’s favour.
He said he was honour-bound;
People thought him braver.

“Bring me hatchets, bring me fire,
We shall burn his cabin!
He’s earned my unholy ire!
He won’t know what happened!”
Steve and Tony, off they trod,
Off they trod together
Feeling stormy, yet instead
Of the sunny weather.

Statistician’s cabin burned
To the ground next morning.
Steve and Tony have not learned,
Though this be a warning:
Cabin dwellers all be sure
Be you all accounted,
Those who cannot count the poor
Can’t themselves be counted.

 

There's only one "i" in election

John Ibbitson, in The Globe, is convinced that Ignatieff is going to provoke an election in the New Year. 

John Ivison, in the National Post,  puts this interpretation to Ignatieff and receives the reply: No, that's not what he means. 

In one of his earlier interviews, Mr. Ignatieff suggested that the party and the electorate are ready for a spring 2011 election. But when I put it to him that this sounds like he is itching to go to the polls, he was more circumspect.

"For nine months, we've been saying we disagree with their fiscal and economic policy. ... I'm not saying anything today I haven't been saying for nine months."

 

Confused? So am I. 

A different kind of year-in-review

There's an old joke that involves dogs, inappropriate behaviour and the punch line: "Because they can." That punch line also works when you consider much of what's passed for political debate in this country in 2010 -- why have politicians/the media/the strategists given Canadians such a barren/polarized/nasty state of things? Well, because they can. Because you, the citizens, are increasingly disengaged. 

With this in mind,  a blogger called simply "A Guy Watching Politics" has summed up the year in Canadian politics, asking not what politicians did or didn't do  for the citizens, but what citizens did in politics. John F. Kennedy would be pleased. I'm so delighted with this approach, and the insights within it, that I'm reprinting it in total here. I hope others spread it around too. More of this in 2011 please. 

WANTED: AN ENGAGED VOTER

 

Parliament is about to begin its winter break, and with that politics watchers out there will be treated to the usual year-end articles, podcasts and news features on "the year that was." As to be expected, these features will focus on the politicians. 

 Who had a good year, and who has disappointed. Who's up-and-coming Cabinet material, and who is destined for the backbench. We'll reflect on the main issues and the players in Ottawa, in the provinces and in major municipalities.

 I would like to propose we add a group to this annual list - the public.

Someone commented to me recently that "democracy isn't a spectator sport. If it's not working then everyone's not working." I could not agree more. I have written on this blog on more than one occasion about the importance of an engaged citizenry; about the need for a public that needs to play a more active and informed role in its democracy.

If the informed chatter is to be believed, we should expect an election in 2011, be it in the spring or the fall. With that in mind, it's an opportune time to consider the voter and ask ourselves what kind of year they - no, we - had. Were we engaged, informed and active participants in our democracy? If we really are heading into an election year, let's consider the voter's state of "preparedness."

My take is that the reviews would be mixed. 

Let's first consider how the year started - prorogation. I think on this front, we were all surprised about the degree to which people were engaged. It was quite interesting to see the reaction of many Canadians to the decision to prorogue for no apparent reason other than to avoid some tricky issues in the House. On our engagement meter, prorogation scores high.

I would also score potash as having generated a high degree of engagement, and not just in Saskatchewan. While I would have liked to have seen the public more aware of the pros AND the cons about allowing the sale (the debate became more of a nationalist one, versus the economic merits, implications for trade and market access, etc.), I still think the fact that this issue became a national one reflects well on the public and the media.

The municipal elections offer a mixed bag in terms of engagement. We had some very interesting results (Calgary), potentially significant results (Toronto), curious results (London) and not surprising results (Ottawa, at least in terms of the race for Mayor). Levels of engagement on the issues varied greatly, but what struck me was the strong interest in change. In many cases it truly was an "out with the old" mentality - something which could have implications for establishment politicians at the provincial and the federal level.

Beyond these areas, I see a public that can be prone to slumber only to be momentarily woken by an issue. The census is an example where we became engaged - but less on the substance, and more on the impression the decision left in terms of the government and what we thought of their, for want of a better word, behaviour. The G20 spending is another example - we were upset, nothing more. To me that's not really engagement.

I then add the relative lack of engagement on issues like Afghanistan, the environment and the economy. Here I see us failing to hold all elected officials to account for what are truly defining issues for the Canada of today and tomorrow. These are the types of issues around which the next election should be fought. I would also add to this list accountability. It was an issue in 2006, and should be again in 2011. 

Whether this proves to be the case will depend on us. Hopefully we're up for it.

Thoughts?

 

Liberal poetry

Today in caucus, Liberal MPs Bonnie Crombie and Dominic LeBlanc entertained their colleagues with a new version of Twas the Night Before Christmas. Here it is, filled with references to the political year that was.  I'm betting it was marginally more funny in person, knowing LeBlanc and Crombie, but on paper, it's still pretty good:

Twas the night before Christmas and all through the House
No spin could be heard, not a rant, not a grouse.
The doors had been locked, no lightbulbs were burning.
In the hopes that this might stop John Baird from returning.
The MPs were nestled as snug as could be
And having their best sleep since last week’s QP.
When out on the Hill came a noise loud and scary
Like a thunderstorm clap or a speech by Don Cherry.
Police and Saint Nicholas were deep in discussion.
Seems Peter MacKay mistook Santa for Russians.
“The CF-18s – send them up,” he decreed.
And that’s how eight tiny reindeer became three.
Saint Nick tried explaining the Christmas occasion
But to Vic Toews it sounded more like home invasion.
Fantino frisked Santa in case he was packing
Tom Flanagan eagerly called for his whacking.
All the kids were in tears, all the towns were displeased
No presents were found under Canada’s trees
When what to our wondering eyes should appear
But the PM in the sleigh he just commandeered.
He spoke not a word – but ran ads on all stations
That a phony coalition would be our damnation.
He had make-up and hair that were expensively styled
And he called out ‘Majority” just to make himself smile.
Our deficit, he warned, grows larger each day
But these toys will sure help when they’re sold on eBay
We’ll cut corporate taxes – for the rich more to make
And have a jolly old laugh down by my fake lake.
But the children turned angry and turned angry quick
So Harper gave each kid a G20 glow stick.
When that didn’t work he sprang to his sleigh
And flew off in great haste to prorogue Christmas Day

Story of the year

All this week, on CTV's Power Play, new host Don Martin is asking guests to choose the story of the year. It was my turn last night, so I'll explain my pick here in a bit further detail (and with bonus links -- you can't get those on TV!)

The Canadian political story of the year, I think, was the running controversy over whether the Harper government should finance abortions as part of its international aid focus on maternal health. 

I remember well the first day this story burst on to the radar. It was during prorogation, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper had just published an op-ed in our paper, announcing his new aid priority.  Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and his party were holding daily policy sessions on Parliament Hill, as a way of filling the political vacuum caused by Harper's extremely unpopular decision to shut down the place until March. 

Ignatieff issued the challenge to Harper in a scrum: would his maternal-health plan include financing for all forms of contraception, including abortion?  

For a while, it seemed the Liberals had caught Harper out with the challenge, and were succeeding in opening up a schism in the Conservative party between the social conservatives and the more moderate progressives; between men and women as well. The Liberals had chosen this challenge very strategically: they were also trying to show Harper as a reconstituted George W. Bush Republican, since Bush and his father had specifically banned support for abortion in developing countries during their times in office. 

But you may remember that the Liberals decided to push the issue when Parliament returned, forcing a vote in the Commons in favour of "all forms" of contraception in foreign aid. Harper was reportedly ready to tell his caucus to support the motion, based on his long-standing promise NOT to reopen the abortion debate in Canada. But the Liberal motion contained some strong language against Bush and the United States too, and to Harper's surprise, the Conservative caucus said this gave them another excuse to vote No when the Liberals forced the question in the House.  

And surprise, surprise -- Liberals were divided on the issue, Conservatives were not, giving us a telling look at the state of caucus management in both parties. The Liberals lost their own vote, when a handful of members either didn't show up or voted with the Conservatives.  

And then, an even bigger surprise: based on how his caucus had handled the matter, Harper announced that his government wouldn't be supporting abortions as part of its aid focus on maternal health. Just like the Bush presidents did. Here's a story I did after the dust had settled. 

This not-so-little political skirmish had long-running implications. It earned us a public rebuke from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in April. In May, thousands and thousands of pro-life supporters cheered the move in their annual rally on Parliament Hill -- the biggest, happiest rally they've ever held. It reverberated through the G8 and G20 meetings held in Ontario in June (though it was overshadowed by the protests, riots and the $1-billion-plus price tag.)   It was seen as possibly part of the reason Canada lost its bid for a seat on the UN Security Council. It forced the Liberals to get their act together on the gun registry; handling this touchy matter with far more strategy than they had with abortion. It was a rare glimpse into Harper's management of a fractious caucus and prompted new looks into how this government exercises social-conservative policies abroad that it can't put in place in Canada. 

I can't think of another political story in Canada that has had so many twists and turns, and potentially so many implications, here and abroad. And I can't say any of us forecast those reverberations when Ignatieff tossed the debate  on to the political agenda last January. 

 

Let's call it a draw

At the end of this Leader-Post story, deconstructing the reasons that the Harper government rejected the BHP potash takeover,  is a very intriguing insight. speculative piece of fiction, according to Industry Minister Tony Clement (see update at bottom of story.) 

The second key element was a leak to former Postmedia columnist Don Martin that the takeover was about to be approved with conditions. The impact of the information leaking out caused panic in a federal government already paranoid about legal breaches of confidentiality over the approval process.

And sources believe the need to disprove the Martin leak was such that it became the other big reason why the Harper government changed its position on the BHP Billiton takeover.

If I understand this properly, the story was correct, but the government, having an issued one of their now-regular "absolutely false" reactions to news  leaks, felt it had to act to spite Martin and his information. Oh, and the polls helped too. Which is just a fabulous way to run a country, don't you think? 

In other news, apparently the Parliamentary Press Gallery won 9-6 against the Conservatives in a recreational hockey game last night.  What we haven't heard yet, but probably will, is that the game carried on into extra overtime after the press team left, Conservatives vs. Conservatives, and actually the Conservatives won. 

 

*** Update: Erik Waddell, senior policy adviser to Industry Minister Tony Clement, has posted "absolute nonsense" on Twitter in reaction to the story of how Don Martin's leak played a part in the decision. 

*** Extra update: Meanwhile, in other news of how leaks can interfere with the running of the country, here's a Globe story on why the government won't be holding its usual pre-budget consultations with Canadian citizens. 

 

*** Update. Let's give Mr. Clement the last word, with a statement issued late on Tuesday: 

Having read Murray Mandryk’s Potash fable in today’s Regina Leader-Post, I seriously question the sources talking to Mr Mandryk, because so much of his innuendo, rumour and mis-information is so far off it really does a disservice to the Canadian public.  As the Minister responsible for the Investment Canada Act, I can confirm that I made my decision to reject the proposed BHP Billiton-Potash Corporation transaction was after consultation with Saskatchewan MPs and listening to the position of the government of Saskatchewan, based on the facts of the deal.

It did not in my view represent a net benefit to Canada, and as this company has assets in other parts of our nation, I do mean all of Canada.  In the days leading up to my announcement there were some very speculative rumours published in newspapers across Canada.  I can tell you that not only are they false, but this was a case of highly irresponsible journalism that affected stock markets around the world.  In fact, I encouraged the media to wait until the process had run its course.  Some did not, and clearly had the story wrong.

For the record, once the decision was made it was never changed, just as the procedure with ICA files information was shared only with those who needed to know.  At no time was there an eleventh-hour change to protect political interests. Nor was a change precipitated by a “leak” because the story mentioned was filled with false facts.  As many had an interest in this transaction, it is very possible that some veteran journalists, Mr Mandryk included, actually bought some of the spin as truth. 

 

 

 

RIP metaphors

A columnist friend of mine was recalling at lunch the other day his first encounter with Laureen Harper.  She was then the wife of the official Opposition leader, watching helplessly (as many spouses do), the wave of negative reportage on her husband. (See previous post.)

On this occasion, Laureen  button-holed the columnist in question and gave him a piece of her mind.  She said (wisely) that the media should stop writing things like "Stephen Harper is dead."  Try to imagine,  she said, what this did to his then-younger children, who tend to take things a little more literally than adults. Seeing their dad described as dead in the paper, however clever or astute it may seem, was simply brutal. 

It seems, especially around Christmas and the holiday season, that perhaps the pundit class might want to reconsider this wisdom from Mrs. Harper.  There's been all too much talk of murder, death, suicide, etc. to make political points recently. I won't put the links here, in the same spirit, but regular readers of National Newswatch, etc., will know what I'm talking about. And I admit, as a member of the commentariat myself, that we can all be guilty of black or overly glib humour. But perhaps it's time to bury the  metaphors and jokes related to death and murder  (pardon the pun), at least during the holidays. 

Time travelling with Tom Flanagan

I've lately been rereading Tom Flanagan's 2007 book, Harper's Team, which, according to Lawrence Martin's book, was published over the protests of Harper himself. I came across this part in the story, and thought it worth reprinting here. Nothing strange or startling -- just some perspective. Note especially the snippet about poll numbers and compare to this story, earlier this week. 

Flanagan is writing about the state of Harper's Conservative party in 2005, in the months before the election that came late in the year. 

While staff reorganization was taking place behind the scenes, the biggest public news was Stephen's summer tour. He was determined to travel all summer, to do the barbecue circuit across the country, as a way of showing that he was not giving up despite his spring setbacks. In fact, he took no holidays that summer; Laureen, Ben, and Rachel accompanied him much of the time on the tour. It was the right thing to do, to show the flag in spite of being wounded; but it did not gather much favourable publicity. Our communications people said things that led the media to interpret it as an image makeover -- finally Stephen Harper was going to learn how to do retail politics. Thus the national coverage -- when there was any national coverage -- was all about whether Stephen had really changed, and reporters could always find some one, like John Crosbie, in the following quotation, to say he hadn't. 

 

"Among our friends, the women think he's scary. Christ Almighty, Paul Martin is ten times as scary. But they believe Harper's cold. And he is cold. He doesn't have human warmth. He's not able to even work a room. He doesn't want to meet people. The thing that saved the Pope (John Paul II), who had some pretty reactionary policies, was that he genuinely wanted to meet people. Unfortunately, Harper needs that, but he hasn't got that at the moment."

At times, the press seemed deliberately malicious, as in the headline on a Brian Laghi story in the Globe and Mail, "Majority Want Harper Replaced, Poll Shows." According to a Strategic Counsel poll reported in the story, 59 per cent of Canadians wanted Harper replaced as leader of the Conservative Party. But the same poll showed that 52 per cent of Canadians, also a majority, thought Paul Martin should be replaced as leader of the Liberal Party. Harper may have been marginally worse off than Martin in public opinion, but to single him out in the headline without mentioning Martin was grossly unfair. 

There was also a lot of pressure at the time for Harper to release the platform for the coming election campaign. Much of that pressure came from the Mike Harris Tories, who remembered how they had won in 1995 by releasing the Common Sense Revolution a year before the election. But Stephen has always believed in holding back the platform until after the writ is dropped, so opponents cannot steal the best parts or adjust their own policies to counteract it. If the platform is kept secret till the writ drops, the leader can make new daily announcements during the campaign, whereas it is harder to speak daily about something already in the public domain. 

 

Given that the institutional memory of Ottawa has shrunk to the time span of approximately a week, it's always interesting to go back a few years, get some perspective, and in the case of the drama-queen Liberals, get a grip. I've also been around here long enough to remember a time when reporters openly laughed at Jean Chretien (not with him) in his opposition-leader days.  The one difference between Chretien and Harper, as far as I can tell, is that Chretien let this all roll off him, shrugged it off when he came to power, but Harper appears to have stored up every slight and carries it around to this day.