Over to you

This blog has been silent through the televised leaders' debates -- deliberately.

It seems to me that the best thing that pundits --  or the "commentariat," as Jack Layton described our business the other night -- is get out of the way while voters are having a chance to see what we see every day. My friend Kady O'Malley alluded to this on CBC Radio's The Current yesterday morning too: you need fresh eyes to judge what fresh eyes are seeing in Canadian politics. What's old to us is new to you. 

And as I was watching all the so-called expert pronouncements on the debate performances all over the TV and internet , I was reminded of the Olympics. You know that moment when judges  register all those marks  that show tiny percentage differences in the judging?  When you're wondering: what  are the  criteria? What are they measuring? What's with the Russian (or insert mysterious markers) judges? Did someone pay someone off?  Similarly, I've seen some earnest explanations on TV of how all this debate strategy  was complicated -- you had to understand, when someone said this, they meant this, and it fit/didn't fit with... well, you get the idea. 

What I've seen, over the past few years, is that the non-political-junkie citizens of Canada keep defying all the conventional wisdom and instant judgments of the chattering class here. Yes, I mean the folks who said that Stephen Harper would never be prime minister or that Rob Ford would never be the mayor of Toronto or the folks who keep saying that Michael Ignatieff will have to go back to Harvard after the next election because Harper's got a majority in his grasp. Oh yes, and that Julian Fantino would win by 10,000 votes in the November by-election in Vaughan. (It was less than 1,000). 

Example: Apparently (I wasn't in the Government Conference Centre), folks were mocking Ignatieff at the debates last night for imagining that he knew what a certain Mme. Paille was experiencing in her life. (Mme. Paille being one of the questioners in the French debate.) Turns out Mme. Paille did actually think he was on the mark.  This has been a recurring theme in Ignatieff's career in politics, it seems --  turning around Trudeau's famous phrase. Here in Ottawa, Ignatieff is too often written off  a nobody, or worse. Same thing for Jack Layton, who, if you'll remember, was supposed to be too sick or frail to conduct a campaign, according to conventional wisdom of early March. As I noted on Twitter last night, I hope that if I ever have to have a hip operation, that I'm well enough within a month or a little more  to spend two hours, two consecutive nights, battling my enemies standing up on a stage in front of a national TV audience. Frankly, I'm in good health and couldn't do it now. 

 Several yards away from Parliament Hill, like Stephen Harper, circa 2001-05, people take these leaders seriously. I saw it all last summer when I decided to go out and quietly watch how Ignatieff  was received aboard his Liberal Express bus tour. So did other reporters, who were less surprised than others about Ignatieff's first couple of solid weeks in this campaign. 

So that is all my way of saying that I don't intend to pronounce on the debates or tell people what to think about what they saw. And for god's sake, don't take your cue from the pollsters.   It's your turn. These leaders deserve to be taken seriously, through the unfiltered gaze of the public they're supposed to serve. So it's over to you. 

New Liberal ad

You may be wondering what happened to that gravy train that Rob Ford railroaded out of Toronto when he won the mayoralty race. As it turns out, it's shown up in a Liberal ad, newly released to seize on yesterday's startling stories surrounding the Auditor-General and the G8 summit last year. Leaving aside politics, it speaks to a certain ability of the Liberals to be nimble in their ad strategy this campaign. Less than 24 hours after the headlines hit, they've been packaged in an ad: 

 

What's a big deal these days?

More than a decade ago, after the Somalia commission was shut down by the Chrétien government, former UWO journalism dean Peter Desbarats lamented that the media was losing its capacity for outrage. It was a prescient warning of the political culture that exists today -- one in which we measure an Auditor-General's explosive findings according to whether they have an influence on the election polls or the leaders' debates. 

All the talk around Ottawa at the moment is whether people outside the political bubble will see the Auditor-General's intervention in the same light as her investigations into the Liberal sponsorship scandal, or the RCMP's announcement in the midst of the 2005-06 election campaign. Or are we so turned off, cynical about politics in general that nothing can outrage us anymore? 

"I’m getting the  impression a large slice of the public is so cynical about what goes on in Ottawa that it’s harder and harder to outrage them,” Prof. Nelson Wiseman says in the Hill Times today. 

Meanwhile, Murray Dobbin, exploring a theme that interests me (and which I'm tackling in a book due out next year), suggests that citizens are more interested in shopping than politics.

After years of creating the consumption democracy and lowering expectations of traditional democracy, we have a population that is disengaged from its own community and its history. That means disconnected from a key source its moral core. Politics makes a difference if you are connected to each other. Otherwise, not so much.

 

 I think we should add to this the rule of rotation that seems to govern Canadian prime ministers and their scandal-management strategies. Brian Mulroney treated scandals as a big deal and fired cabinet ministers. Jean Chrétien treated scandals they were no big deal, shrugging and moving on. Paul Martin treated scandals as a huge deal, setting up the Gomery commission and an all-out media blitz. Stephen Harper is following the Chrétien school -- shrug, move on. Note who has been rewarded by history in that chain of prime ministers. 

I guess that takes us back to Peter Desbarats and his profound disappointment in a media that allows, even encourages prime ministers to treat serious ethical criticism like it's lint on a suit. Here's Desbarats, talking about the deafening silence from political reporters when the Somalia commission was shut down: 

 

 

 

"Do they no longer understand that the erosion of freedom in one part of our system is a threat to the free expression that is the life blood of journalism? Many of my colleagues in journalism treated the issue as a political question, a question of political tactics. Would the government win? Was it doing the right things strategically? "The problem with this kind of reporting is that it loses sight of the moral issues involved. Many journalists looked upon it as a 'we against them' conflict  we three commissioners against the government and the military. But the 'we' in this case was not the commission, it was the Canadian people."

 

 

 

 

 

Because it works

One of my first reporting projects in Ottawa, more than 20 years ago,  was an access-to-information request on where  skills-training dollars were spent by Brian Mulroney's Conservative government.  The government turned over computer printouts -- pages and pages of them, on each individual grant.  And line by line, back in the old Globe library, I went through the job contracts and counted -- an amazing amount of "skills development" money was financing low-skill service labour in donut shops, hardware stores, etc. 

When I was ready to write about this dubious spending to enhance skills in the Canadian labour market,   I approached an opposition politician, who said he absolutely would NOT condemn the dollars spent. "Every time one of those grants comes to my riding, I get to go down to the donut shop and hand over the cheque, and when an election rolls around, I get the credit," he said, bluntly. "That's our job -- to bring dollars to the riding."

Being young and idealistic then, I was somewhat taken aback by the brazen cynicism. I also wondered: "Who the heck casts their vote on how much money goes to the donut shop in town?"

Today, though, it's conventional wisdom, but wisdom worth questioning when we read this bombshell leak from the forthcoming Auditor-General's report. Apparently the Conservative government may have bypassed Parliament and senior civil servants to dole out millions and millions of dollars in things such as bunny trails, parks and landscaping in Muskoka. Before we get all caught up in the process issue -- ie., what the government did, don't you think we should also be asking why?

The cynical answer is: Because it works. No politician would take this risk for the sheer kick of it. Obviously there was some thought that pouring this much money into Muskoka would bring political benefit over and above the potential criticism.

And that takes me back to the question that baffled me when I was 28 years old and new to this business.  Do people really base their vote on something that crass? Booty or loot for the riding? If that's the case, we might want to demand better of ourselves, as voters, as well as the politicians. Is your vote really cheap enough to be purchased in exchange for some landscaping?

Who wants a civil election?

The answer to that question, so far, is apparently: not many. 

A non-partisan, grassroots group, called Civil Election, is trying to get candidates to sign a pledge of civility for this campaign.

There are three parts to the promise. Candidates must say they are committed to: 

Make myself available for public debates and all-candidate meetings

Not engage in personal attacks on my political opponents

Advocate for a respectful and substantive exchange of ideas

I checked in this morning on signatures so far and sorry to report, at near the mid-point of this campaign, fewer than 70 have signed up.  Only five incumbents: Carolyn Bennett, Gerard Kennedy, Marlene Jennings  from the Liberals, Bruce Hyer and Charlie Angus from the NDP.

Some other stats: In total, Greens are the big pledge signers: 44 so far. The Liberals are in a distant second, with 14 signatures, the NDP has 9 and zero from the Bloc and the Conservatives.  I think we should just assume that it's because not a lot of people know about the pledge. If you're reading this, you may want to direct your candidate's attention to it.  

Low road

At the end of Week Two, a couple of dispatches from the less-than-high road in Election 2011. Happy (I think) to print more if you have examples. 

Internet 'dirty tricks' mar candidate’s campaign

 KITCHENER — Dirty tricks have come to federal election campaigns in Waterloo Region.

Bob Rosehart, the Liberal candidate in Kitchener-Conestoga, was shocked to find that when people type his name into their computers looking for campaign information, they get automatically redirected to a site that makes sharp, personal criticisms of Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.

Type in bobrosehart.com or bobrosehart.ca and instead you get michaelignatieff.me which features the Liberal leader on the cover of what looks like a tabloid-style gossip magazine.

“Elitist exclusive: I’m just visiting,” the headline says, emphasizing the fact that Ignatieff has lived in the United States for many years.

And: “I am horribly arrogant and sure of myself.”

The site is authorized by the registered agent for the Conservative party.

 

 

Meanwhile, former National Citizens' Coalition head Gerry Nicholls sent out this email today: 

 

FYI -- just wanted to make clear I am saddened and sickend by the recent NCC attack on Ignatieff's wife.

 

When I was at the NCC it was a non-partisan group dedicated to fighting for free market ideals.

 

Yes we were tough but not sleazy.

 

Sadly, that's changed. The organization has clearly lost its way.

 

 

Gerry Nicholls
Political/Communications Consultant
Cell: 647-223-2617
Home: 905-849-5863

 

The fashion for fed-bashing

Events appears to be conspiring today, north and south of the 49th parallel, to get us thinking about why we even need a  federal government. 

In Washington, as I write this, talks are still continuing in a budget impasse that could see the shutdown of the U.S. federal government at midnight tonight. In Canada, meanwhile, the Conservatives have just released a platform that's apparently a blueprint for a much smaller federal government, according to Jim Flaherty. 

 Over  the past 20 years in Canada, through Liberal and Conservative governments, there's been a general agreement that Ottawa is too big, too fat and too out of touch with everyday citizens' lives. The less we get of Ottawa, the better -- that's pretty much the general consensus. Even the New Democratic Party has picked up on that anti-Ottawa sentiment in this campaign, with its Ottawa-is-broken ads. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, meanwhile, often highlights the fact that he's not a career politician, as if to subtly remind people that he's not part of the "Ottawa problem" either. 

All of which raises the question of why we may be having trouble getting people interested in the current election. Why pay attention to a contest to install people in a big, fat, broken, irrelevant institution? 

 And that's where the Washington budget impasse comes in handy. Have a look here at all that will be affected south of the border if the federal government shuts down tonight in the U.S. It's not exactly irrelevant or out-of-touch stuff. Useful to remember, in the midst of a campaign when it's not exactly fashionable to talk about Ottawa's role in people's lives. 

Fun with Facebook

Last week, Election 2011 was all-a-Twitter, as Tamara Small writes over at the Shopping for Votes blog. But this week, it's Facebook's turn to be in the spotlight.  It's a big breakout for a social medium that's normally forbidden in government offices (I think that's correct; please let me know if I'm wrong about that.) But now that all the politicos have plunged into an election campaign, Facebook's very much in fashion. 

For instance, while Harper and Ignatieff may not have their one-on-one debate, they are duking it out in the contest for Facebook friends. Ignatieff's Facebook friends have now overtaken Harper's numbers -- 51,291 for the Liberal leader as of Wednesday afternoon, 46,624 for the Conservative leader. 

Meanwhile, we all know about the student removed from the rally because of her Facebook picture featuring  Ignatieff. And wasting no time, Ignatieff has now sent out an appeal for donations, titled: "The Danger of Being My Facebook Friend." (My thanks to Stephen Hui, at Straight.com, for printing out the text of the pitch, excerpted below.) 

That’s Stephen Harper’s Canada. Undemocratic. Disrespectful. And certainly going against our best Canadian traditions.

And it’s why I’m asking you to donate what you can right now — so we can leave it behind for good on May 2.

How Stephen Harper’s Conservatives decide to do a Facebook background check on everyone at their rallies, while ignoring the criminal past of a senior advisor like Bruce Carson is a mystery to me.

 And just to underline the point, Liberals have also put out this little animated feature too on YouTube:  

 

 

An index for Day 11

Now that the campaign days have moved into the double digits, some other, random  numbers to ponder: 

It's double digits no longer, re:  the gap between Liberals and Conservatives in the Globe/CTV/Nanos daily tracking. 9 points separate the parties, in  what Nanos is speculating may be  a "platform bump" for Ignatieff. 

Number of seats Conservatives will win according to  www.electionprediction.org: 111. 

Number of Liberal seats, by the same prediction: 60. 

NDP: 22. 

Bloc: 35.

Too close to call 80. 

Seats needed for majority in the House of Commons: 155. 

 

Number of nominated candidates so far (according to Pundits Guide, that treasure-trove of election data): 1040 (or so...number changing rapidly) 

Number who have signed a pledge of civility, from civilelection.ca: 20 

How adept  are the political parties at using social media? The PostRank blog has found a way to measure, by counting "sharing events" in cyberspace. (Answer: Liberals are way out ahead.)  Here's the tally: 

Liberals: 6619

NDP: 3003

Green Party: 2514

Conservatives: 1152

Bloc Quebecois: 498

 

Number of times the party leaders have visited Tim Hortons so far: ??? (I'd really like to know. Anyone have a running count?) 

 

"Coalition clause" in Liberal platform

One tiny item in today's Liberal platform leaps out (at least to me): a Liberal government would convene regular, face-to-face meetings of all party leaders in the House of Commons, to "take stock of the tone of Parliamentary debate, productivity in the conduct of people's business and the mandates for in-depth work by standing committees."

 Upon further inquiry, Liberals said they envision monthly gatherings of all leaders if they are elected. 

You may wonder: why would a political party have to promise this? Surely there are conversations held all the time in Parliament between the party leaders. 

Well, uh, no, there are not. There used to be such meetings, informally, I gather, and it was generally understood that behind all the public sparring for the cameras, politicians of all stripes generally respected each other and chatted from time to time. Not now. In the hyper-partisan, minority  Parliaments of  the past seven years, everyone's an enemy and to fraternize with them is to admit a  weakness. This isn't what folks are taught at leadership schools in the private sector, where working with others is a strength.... but that's another world, apparently. 

Frankly, Stephen Harper's greatest  show of leadership skills along these lines took place before he became prime minister, when, shortly after the 2004 election, he spent the summer talking to Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton and figuring out whether they could work together. The product of that negotiation was the now-famous letter to the Governor-General, which is now a tool in the hands of Harper's rivals, just as the Liberal-NDP coalition agreement of 2008 is a tool in the hands of Harper and the Conservatives.

Because working together is wrong. That's how mixed up things are in our wee tiny dysfunctional world of Parliament Hill. No wonder no one understands politics. 

But back to the "coalition clause" in the Liberal platform. The whole document is framed as an appeal to those who might be tempted to support other parties too -- take a look at the Green-friendly and NDP-friendly policies within it.   Last year, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said that his answer to all the coalition talk would be the reply: "Liberals *are* the coalition." This platform is his attempt to cast the party in that light, and should probably be measured that way. It would be interesting if all the political platforms were assessed for promises of co-operation, actually. So far, we only have one, and I'm not sure that we are demanding this of our politicians.