Canadian Cincinnatus

Stephen Harper’s next job: switch tactics

Until yesterday, Prime Minister Harper has been content to play it small. By that, I mean that he has chosen to focus his party’s rhetoric on minor, partisan matters such as secret coalition deals, Michael Ignatieff’s time spent abroad, etc. I have criticized Harper many times on these pages for refusing to campaign on principle (arguing that a. the public has OD’d on negative political attack ads and b. he hasn’t differentiated the Tory brand enough on matters of substance), but hey, you can’t argue with success. 

But now things have changed - decisively. There is no longer a mushy, amorphous party in the middle that can claim left-wing pieties and fiscal discipline all in the same breath. Taliban Jack will be happy to cooperate by standing still and slogging it out with us on core left-right issues. This is what he said yesterday:

“We will try to convince Mr. Harper to do what he should,” he said. “And with the mandate we received, it’s his obligation to listen to us.”

In this post I am not arguing for pedal-to-the-metal conservatism in action. For starters, Harper has said he has no intention of doing any such thing. His plan is to move Canada incrementally rightward while avoiding nutso leftist schemes and other mistakes. In other words, cut corporate taxes and government spending while steering clear of cap and trade. Second, Harper cannot implement anything far reaching (as much as we’d like him to) because he didn’t promise anything concrete in his election campaign, aside from eliminating the gun registry and taxpayer subsidies to political parties (both of which he now has the green light to implement). In politics, its not a good idea to ambush the public with major policy changes without first asking their permission in an election campaign. Voters can have a long memory if they feel cheated.

No, what I am advocating here concerns words rather than actions. With two principled parties dominating Parliament, the time is now to have an honest, national dialogue on the governing values of Canada. Done right, we can move the hearts and minds of Canadians towards small-c conservatism. This will not only supercharge our base but has the potential to move the trajectory of Canada in the right direction for a generation. 

 

 

 

Harper must highlight the NDP’s destructive policies

If polls like this one are correct (and I remain skeptical – though I was also skeptical of the first poll that showed the NDP beating the Libs), then the NDP has effectively steamrolled over the Liberals and are directly threatening us. A strong NDP means Conservatives benefit from vote splitting. A too strong NDP means and we begin to bleed ridings.

While it is clear that the NDP is riding a wave of populist enthusiasm because the voters are sick to their stomachs of politics-as-usual, in their euphoria they forget the NDP’s noxious extreme-left policies. Stephen Harper’s job is to sober them up by highlighting those policies. 

He seems to be doing this already, but given the fact that public is recoiling from the ugliness of negative campaigning, this must be done extremely carefully. Making hysterical anti-NDP attack, a’la David Peterson in the waning days of the Ontario provincial election of 1990, will only backfire and drive voters even further into the arms of Jack Layton. Any hint of fear in the message will be proof that we are panicking.

What must be presented to the voters is a sober cataloguing of the NDP’s extremist policies - carefully explaining why these are a disaster waiting to happen. The name Bob Rae should be brought up in Ontario. This should always be counterbalanced with a positive message of pro-economic-growth policies of the Conservatives. Highlighting the recklessness of reopening constitutional talks is a good start. In rural areas, talk about the NDP’s anti-gun agenda. In the West, explain how the effete, urban sensibilities of Layton are a direct threat to tar sands development. The message must be a judicious mix of positive and negative.

Do that and the voters will have the appropriate sober second thoughts before May 2.

 

 

How to really reform Parliament: separate the legislative and executive branches

According to this survey of 65 former MP’s, most believe that our Parliamentary system - as it now stands - is dysfunctional. They overwhelmingly blame the centralized party structure.

I contend that this is an old refrain: when today’s Liberals whine over Stephen Harper’s micromanagement, they merely echo Reformers during the Chrétien era, when Reform MP’s referred to Liberal backbenchers as ‘trained seals’. The problem is that, in recent years, Ottawa is run by the Prime Minister and his all-powerful PMO. Ordinary MP’s are merely pawns who only do what they are told. Cabinet Ministers have even less freedom. Their chief function is to carry water for the PM. In our system of democracy, we are supposed to be represented by our MP’s, but lately they have little real freedom of action. Though the people in their riding are the ones who send them to Ottawa, they de facto only answer to the PM.

While I agree with this criticism, the trouble is, under the current system, ruling your MP’s like a dictator is the only way to survive in Ottawa. If you don’t believe me, recall Preston Manning and Stockwell Day. Those guys didn’t micromanage anything - indeed Preston Manning went out of his way to empower his grass roots. And look how far that got them. Rarely a week went by without a ‘Nazi eruption’. Manning and Day were always in damage control mode while Chrétien’s always-on-message trained seals crushed them at the polls time and time again.

If you want to change their behaviour, you have to change the rules our politicians have to play by. It seems to me that the root cause of centralism is that our executive and legislative branches are not separate. This is an anachronism inherent in the British parliamentary tradition, dating from a time when Parliament was the legislative branch and the King, the executive branch. Unfortunately, when the power of the King faded away, no other executive took his place; power just migrated to Parliament, and from there to its dominant member - the Prime Minister.

Over time, this changed the way MP’s operated. With the need to maintain unity to survive confidence votes, parliamentary politics favoured the united over the divided. Natural selection caused power to move from individual MP’s to the PM. It used to be that the MP’s in his own party selected the Prime Minister. In the 1930’s, Mackenzie King invented the party convention so that he could bypass the will of his MP’s altogether. Thanks to this innovation, Prime Ministers are answerable directly to convention delegates. By the time of Mulroney and Chrétien, Prime Ministers had another tool for control: MP’s needed the PM to sign their nomination papers. If the papers didn’t get signed, the MP couldn’t represent his party in his riding, regardless of what the party members actually living in the riding thought. And as icing on the cake, the PM also appoints Supreme Court justices and senators with little requirement to consult anybody.

I agree that this is a deplorable and dysfunctional state of affairs. The question is, what to do? Half-hearted reforms like holding more free votes do little to change the substantive nature of our politics. As long as MP’s fear their leader more than their constituents, nothing will change. Change that and all else follows.

In this spirit, here is my proposal: make the Governor General an elected official and schedule GG elections every 5 years. Second, hand over the executive functions of the government to the Governor General, giving him the power to appoint cabinet officials, subject to Parliamentary confirmation. This is less of a change than it might first appear, as even now ministers don’t have to sit in Parliament. This will give Canada’s CEO the freedom to appoint relevant experts to run federal departments. Third, hold parliamentary elections concurrently with GG elections. There is a move already afoot to fix the date of elections, but with the possibility of governments losing confidence votes, the date of elections can never be truly fixed.

You can still keep the PM - and he can stay at Sussex drive for all I care - but once the GG becomes Canada’s chief executive, the PM will be chiefly occupied with legislative matters. Since France has both a Prime Minister and a President, I don’t see a problem with this dual arrangement. And since party solidarity is no longer required to avoid the voters, MP independence will increase. To speed this up, MP’s can be required to indicate by annual secret ballot the confidence they have in their party leader. Annual confidence votes will force party leaders to respect their MP’s.

Do that and we can once again have independent Members of Parliamentary, voting according to their conscience and honestly representing their constituents. Individual riding elections will once again mean more than 1/308^th of the national election.

As a side bonus, you can now have an elected Senate without destabilizing the executive.

Any thoughts or comments?

Coalition talk: Ignatieff’s indecisiveness is the real issue

Apparently – in an attempt to snatch defeat from the jaws of defeat – the Liberal Leader, Michael Ignatieff mused publicly a couple of days ago about a coalition government, the possibility of which he has previously – if legalistically - dismissed.

When Stephen Harper first raised the spectre of a Three Stooges coalition following the election, Ignatieff had three ways to respond. They are:

a. “There is nothing wrong, illegitimate or illegal about a coalition government. If the Liberals come in second place behind the Tories but the Conservatives fail to get a majority, I will do whatever I can to further the policy goals that I believe are right for Canada, and if that requires forming a coalition government with all the other non-right parties, then that is what I will do.”

b. “If the Liberals come in second place behind the Tories but the Conservatives fail to get a majority, I will do whatever I can to further the policy goals I believe are right for Canada. But one thing that I do not believe is right for Canada is a government that includes a partner dedicated to Canada’s destruction. Therefore, I will never form a government with the Bloc Quebecois.”

c. “Maybe a coalition, but not if it includes the Bloc, but a coalition that informally depends on Bloc support for certain key votes, I might be able to support, but only under certain special conditions...blah...blah...blah.”

To win an election, you need the unaligned voters in the middle. Typically, these people do not care about issues but are driven by personality and gut-feel (see this post for an explanation of how the moderate, centrist voters really think). What these people respond to most is leadership. What repels them is lack of leadership.

Therefore, given this reality, the correct choice for Ignatieff is option a or b. Option c – legalistic and noncommittal waffling in the middle – is his worst option. Real leaders realize that many decisions in the real world are digital – yes or no, a or b. They don’t choose King Solomon’s baby. Paul Martin’s balloon deflated when he went from being the heroic deficit slayer to Mr. Dithers. Iggy is following the same trajectory – minus the heroic starting point.

The Liberal attacks are becoming unproductive

I was originally worried that all the accusations made by the Liberal and the NDP on Stephen Harper would take their toll on the Conservatives during the election campaign - you know, a death by a thousand cuts. But, so far at least, they have been so vicious and on matters so petty that I think the strategy is beginning to backfire on them.

While I am a big believer in the efficacy of negative advertising in swaying undecided voters, I think that beyond a certain point such attacks can become counterproductive, particularly if you fail to deliver a smoking gun.

The big weakness in their strategy is that all the accusations are about procedural matters - not personal ethics. For instance, the worst that can be said about Tony Clement diverting a small percentage of money earmarked by Parliament for the G8 summit to local projects is that he has engaged in pork barrel politics. If he had diverted the money into his own pocket, or even recycled it into campaign contributions, it would have been a different matter. It’s a similar story with the Bev Oda NOT scandal. She stands accused of changing a document to prevent the taxpayers’ money from being spent. If, instead, the opposition parties had caught her channeling public money to Tory-friendly organizations, then they would have had something.

The problem for the Liberals is, who really believes that if the Liberals were in charge, pork barrel spending would stop? Or that the Ignatieff government would have a respectful relationship with Parliament? The reason why the voters can’t swallow such things can be summed up in two-word - Jean Chrétien. 

At the end of the day, the Liberals haven’t given the undecided voter a reason to change governments. Which is why Harper’s insistence on staying the course and focusing on economic issues trumped the other leaders during the debates. Harper came out looking sober and serious, while Ignatieff looked petty, vindictive and desperate.

Liberal vs. Tory campaign platforms: well, at least somebody is doing something right

In the National Post, Kelly McParland compares the Liberal and Conservative policy platforms. This is his conclusion:

“It’s two very different views. The Conservatives believe Ottawa has a specific role in well-defined areas of responsibility and should stick to them; the Liberals see themselves ranging broadly over Canada, putting their hand in where they think there’s a need. The Conservatives believe budget certainty is key to providing other services, the Liberals see it as important but not a game-breaker. The Tories see Canada playing a strong, high-profile role in the world, the Liberals prefer a more muted, collectivist approach. Mr. Harper’s government sees plenty more areas to come down hard on law-breaking, Mr. Ignatieff’s Liberals think the Tories are paranoid.

You don’t need a debate to figure out what these parties are about. It’s right there in black and white. It’s a distinct choice, and an important one.”

As somebody who has pushed for a Conservative campaign based on principle, I am somewhat heartened by this finding – well, at least partially.

Now, if only the Conservatives could take that already-spelled-out vision and articulate it publicly to Canadians in clear, forceful and easy to understand terms. You know, the way Rob Ford was able to do. If they did, I think they would find, to their surprise, that all the petty scandals that have been dogging them throughout this campaign would fade away into the background.

 

The G8 summit in Muskoka and the political liability of government spending

Us small government types are always being told by political ‘realists’ (i.e. ‘moderates’) that penny pinching isn’t popular, that it makes you look heartless and cruel. To win the trust of Canadians – we are assured - you must demonstrate your ‘compassion’, and the best way to do that is by creating new government spending initiatives.

And yet, time after time, these politically advantageous projects blow up as major embarrassments. The current example is the Auditor General’s report on government spending on the G8 and G20 summits. To recap, a draft version of Sheila Fraser’s audit of the spending at the summits has made it into the press, apparently noting that $50 million of the $1.24 billion earmarked for security, policing and the hosting of foreign dignitaries was diverted to pork barrel projects in the Muskoka area.

I have no idea how much truth these press reports contain but, if accurate, I can just see the thinking behind them: we host a prestigious foreign conference - highlighting Canada’s leadership role in international affairs, while diverting a small portion of the funds to political feel-good projects; Harper comes out looking like a statesman while, at the same time, we solidify our hold on central Ontario; a win-win. 

Only problem: it turned out to be a lose-lose. All Canadians took away from the G8 and G20 summits was gross government waste and images of violent left-wing anarchists trashing Toronto and tying our court system up in knots. And now, to add insult to injury, a potentially serious scandal appears at a time we can least afford it - in the middle of a federal election!

So, from this moment onwards, I don’t want to hear so much as a tiny peep from our red Tory comrades about the ‘cleverness’ of big government spending programs. The fact of the matter is that the only ethical government is a thrifty government, and the only government effective at carrying out its core responsibilities is a small government. Those who think that attempting to buy off voters with government spending schemes is a good idea should explain how they intend to deal with the unintended consequences of feeding the bloated, stupid and venal beast of big government.

 

What Rob Ford can teach Stephen Harper

A week ago, I was entertained by an improv session where young, amateur performers were each given a topic and 5 minutes to prepare a 5-minute speech on that subject. One young man did a riff on Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s recent and successful mayoral campaign. He touched on all of Ford’s themes: ending the gravy train, respecting the taxpayers, getting rid of pinko’s etc. Everybody laughed because everybody understood immediately what he was on about.

As I laughed along, I reflected on the genius of Ford’s campaign. Rob Ford’s message was so simple, so strong, so heartfelt and so easy to follow that it seeped not only into the minds of the voters but also into the general pop culture as well. Political strategists always intone upon their clients to stay ‘on message’. Rob Ford’s campaign is a textbook illustration of this principle at work. For this reason, I believe it is incumbent on all right-of-center politicians to carefully study Ford’s brilliant campaign when they plan their own election strategy.

Which brings us to the current federal election. The problem with the federal Conservative’s present day campaign is its over-riding message. Er, what is it? Offhand, I can’t tell you. This is the result of choosing to play it small. And this is why the election so far has been dominated by petty matters. In contrast, notice what happened when Rob Ford’s principal challenger - the formerly rising Liberal star (but now invisible) George Smitherman – set up a web site that had compiled for the voters all of Rob Ford’s politically incorrect statements: nothing. When reporters asked him for comment, Ford just shrugged it off. He told them that he had his own message and that he wasn’t about to get distracted by what others were saying. For all his troubles, Smitherman came out looking petty and irrelevant. 

It is not too late for Harper’s campaign, but he has to switch gears soon if he is to get his majority. Harper’s best issue is the economy. It is the issue that worries Canadians the most but it is also where Canada shines in comparison to all other developed nations. Conservative strategists should come up with a clear, simple and compelling message on this theme and stick to it – loud and clear! Early on, I was heartened by reports that intimated that the Conservative campaign was going to do just that. But so far nothing – at least nothing said consistently, passionately or clearly enough to resonate.

The only saving grace is that Iggy’s campaign is even more aimless. Oh well, another pointless Seinfeld campaign of mudslinging where we will muddle on though to win another minority when a solid majority is well within our grasp.

Don’t forget about the campaign funding issue, Stephen

With all the hubbub swirling about secret coalition agendas in this election campaign, the Conservatives should endeavour not forget the campaign finance issue: you know, the plan to cut public subsidies to political parties, announced in the Nov 27, 2008 fiscal update that precipitated the three-stooges-coalition crisis. Eliminating public payments to political parties is very popular with the voters and it will knee-cap the Liberals who – thanks to campaign finance restrictions - can no longer access their traditional source of funds: fat-cat donors.

The only thing is: as popular as abolishing political subsidies is, it can’t be done without explicitly promising it first in the campaign. As Mike Downtown noted in the last post:

I once read a book in which a king states that he can break laws while ruling his kingdom, but he can't go against what the people have always assumed is the law, the tradition. In this case voters expect the party with the most votes gets to form the government.

Another tradition that the voters are fond of is the tradition that the government doesn’t enact any laws that it didn’t campaign for (unless they are a reaction to some unforeseen event). Though promises are broken all the time, the public hates this and will hate it doubly so if the law is seen to be self-serving.

If the Conservatives win a majority and then cut funding to political parties without mentioning that they plan on doing this in the campaign, the public will see this as an undemocratic move designed to create a one-party state. And they will loathe the Conservatives for it. 

To avoid that fate, say it loud and say it proud now. The Liberals will squeal but the public will be against them and, as a result, the Libs will lose even more votes. And when the new Conservative majority gets around to enacting it, the public will accept it as a legitimate policy change.

 

Does Ignatieff Just Want To Go Home? (To Harvard)

The polls say he's 20 points behind the conservatives, so short of a drastic reversal of fortune there is no chance that Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff can win enough votes to form even a minority government, yet he desperately wants an election.

Many have already speculated that if the conservatives win a similar minority, Iggy plans to revive Stephan Dion's unholy alliance with the separatists and the socialists to form a government.  He has kind of, but not really, denied this in such a way that he can easily deny that he denied it.  Yes, confusing, and this will haunt him for the rest of the election.

But I wonder if he wants an election for a much simplier reason: maybe he's fed up with being in politics.  It's much easier being a pundit about politics than actually being a politician.  In fact, I'm reminded of the HBO series Rome when Ceaser has left Mark Anthony in charge of Rome for a time.  Anthony, clearly missing combat and bored silly, complains, "Running Rome is not as amusing as I thought it would be."

But now that Iggy is leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, how does he quit and go back home to Harvard without looking like...well...a quitter?  Simple: force the election that some of his party members want, go down spectaularly in flames, and he'll get tossed by his own party after the election.  He can go back to Harvard with his head held high, write a book about it all and go on talk shows, where he'll probably talk about what "we Americans have to decide" about the issue du jour.

But if his plan is the unholy alliance, he's going to find himself in huge trouble.  It may not be illegal to form the government even though the Conservatives have the biggest share of seats, but Iggy would be breaking an unwritten rule.  I once read a book in which a king states that he can break laws while ruling his kingdom, but he can't go against what the people have always assumed is the law, the tradition. In this case voters expect the party with the most votes gets to form the government.

If Ignatieff goes against that he may form his coalition government and hold power for a while, but he'll have to shovel endless money at Quebec and NDP socialist programs in order to stay afloat.  This will be incredibly unpopular.  Eventually even Iggy will have to admit that the country is out of money and the Bloc will bring down his government just to prove they have the power.  When he has to face the voters again I believe the liberals will go down to their greatest defeat in Canadian history.  It may even rival the shellacking the old PC party received under Kim Campbell.

But untold damage would be done to the Canadian economy in the meantime, and our deficit will rival Obama's GDP ratio debt.

Perhaps its wishful thinking on my part, but I hope Iggy just wants to go home to Harvard.

Mike Downtown