Election '08 report card: no A marks

An election is a cathartic experience. On election night most people are too exhausted to attack anyone any more. The leaders' speeches were fairly refreshing, kind of what politics should be about. I didn't blog much during the campaign because I thought it was mostly a gong show, as Right from Alberta pointed out at the very beginning.

A majority became impossible just a few weeks into the campaign. Despite the enthusiasm at rallies and the "steady as she goes" platform, I think we let certain weaker spots be monopolized in the debates and the media. We also delivered several policies wrong. Instead of balancing funding cuts with promotion of mecenatism we let the cuts rule the news. The Young Offenders amendment could have been delivered more diplomatically without the harsh language that lost us Quebec and potentially one of the most capable ministers in the outgoing government. I've seen a lot of pointed fingers, which almost completely hid the merits of every party's stances. If we were to write a report card, here's what it would look like for Headmaster Luca:

Liberals: The big survivor in this election. Between the Tory hammer pounding mercilessly and the hard anvil of Greens and NDP the party still managed not to go into complete disarray. Dion deserves credit for not breaking down in tears by the end of the campaign. Seeing Dion being pounded by Layton, someone close to me remarked: "He's so cute!" That's the main trouble with Dion - his cuteness. As a prof and as a scholar he is probably a star, in the world of politics he is a lamb sent to the slaughter. The Liberal Party needs to go on a fundraising spree if it wants to survive until the next election.

Tories: The ones who blew it. With the polls in majority territory they allowed themselves to be bogged down in minor matters. They need to re-evaluate their campaign milestones and their timing, and a trip to 30 Millbank, London UK may be in order. Definitely the party with the most impressive quantity of tangible electoral assets. Rarely can one blow a campaign and stay in government. We need to wake up to the fact, however, that people hate being taken for granted, and that's probably what killed us in Edmonton-Strathcona.

Bloc: Consistent with their record, the Bloc is biting, ready to fight with a frighteningly solid electoral basis. Considering their origin I am not surprised the major parties have a hard time beating them. Nevertheless they are the force to be reckoned with in Quebec. Their campaign, however, could have been much better, pointing more to their own stances rather than the need to not vote for a particular national party. Duceppe can teach the other leaders a few lessons in campaigning, debating and communications: his straight talk and granitic stubbornness give him a granitic base in his home province.

NDP: Great campaign, but drop the childish rhetoric. Seriously, the words "corporation", "big oil" and "Bush" aren't good premises for winning an election. And for the record corporations bring jobs, Big Oil is propping up Canada's economy and helping us avoid a major economic meltdown, while G.W. Bush kicked Taliban butts and hangs a Damocles sword above North Korea. Jack Layton holds no Gospel and the NDP has no monopoly over truth, morality or care. If Layton keeps up the efforts he may well overtake the Liberals very soon.

Greens: You are kidding, right?

One last thought for Newfoundland and Labrador. I've seen much N.L.-bashing in the Toriosphere, and I believe it is unfair. Newfoundlanders misplaced their trust and got kicked out of a Tory government in Ottawa. A more dramatic reality eluded many minds though. The election of October 14th showed that Newfoundland and Labrador is hardly essential for a majority government. Newfoundlanders may have paid back the Harper Government for equalization, but at the price of manifest irrelevance. THAT, my friends, is sad.

Three issues I'd like to see in the ads

Browsing through the Tory TV ads I noticed three great absences:

1) Environment
2) Debt culture
3) Economic shift

First off, the environment. The Party let Dion monopolize the debate on the issue with his carbon tax plan that is crumbling as we speak. These are very good times for releasing an ad featuring the Prime Minister talking openly about the Tory environmental policy, how we plan to face the challenges of increasing fuel prices and increasing demand for renewables.

Under an ideal Tory plan rewards would be given for efficiency and enviro-friendliness, such as tax credits. Under Dion, one would be punished for consuming, no matter what. Going through the hassle of being efficient would only reduce the punishment. Clearly, this is a ridiculously powerful message that we should be sending out.

Second, the debt culture. The mortgage collapse and the current state of the US economy offer food for thought regarding how people manage their money. Canada hasn't got the massive household debt the US is facing, yet I am not aware of any particular incentives for saving up instead of borrowing for consumption.

If families be important, certainty is important for families. Focusing on a shift to a savings culture would help hammer out the message that the Tories care for family solidity and wellbeing rather than just the stereotypical money they spend and the kids they make.

Thirdly, the economic shift. Manufacturing in Canada is undergoing a systemic crisis. Fuel costs, overseas labor, unionized pay and a collapse in domestic demand have driven many plants out of business. It is naive to expect this unemployment will just go away and it is very unwise to appear not to do much about it. Both McGuinty and Layton have seized the initiative on re-training funds, one way or another. Why not the Tories? I'd like the party to speak up on helping transitioning the Canadian workforce into higher-skilled specialty manufacture and service industries. This would create demand for education jobs, free up resources for other investments and secure Canadians' future job prospects.

These are only three issues I'd like the Party to address. When you count the pennies before payday you probably care a little less about what goes on above the 60th parallel.

If we're going to do it, let's be prepared

Mulling over elections is never good. Keeping Canadians on their toes isn't either. An election is possibly the most tangible aspect of politics: either there is or there isn't one.

The Prime Minister's concerns about the functioning of Parliament in the upcoming session are legitimate. Many bills would probably be killed by the Liberals, and if little progress is made in the by-elections the Grits will have an ace up their sleeve. Combined with a bruising 2008 so far we're NOT in a good position to trigger an election in our favor.

Many mishaps could have been avoided or run better (Bernier comes to mind). Our communications strategy could have focused more on accomplishments and vision for Canada, rather than just rubbishing the products of Stephane Dion's vivid imagination. The water strategy, mentioned in the Throne Speech, is nowhere to be seen from where I am. We're not exalting our claim to Arctic sovereignty as strongly as it deserves.

The PM is right to meet with opposition leaders to discuss the agenda for the next session of Parliament. We do, however, know the response. Bloc and NDP will say no, Liberals will say "we'll see". Calling them into the open is the best tactic. A draft agenda with specification of planned bill content will do the trick. If Dion stays silent he signs his own political death warrant. If he rejects the proposal the PM can go to the Governor General and ask very serenely to return to the ballot box before the commencement of the fall session.

There's no doubt Canada will go to the polls in September or October. What the Tories must do is tap into the vast reserve of popular and needed measures that would demonstrate leadership and vision. Some bills before Parliament right now are political TNT, with countless interpretations and possible skewings. That's NOT a baggage we can bring to the polls.

If we want to repeat the job interview with Canadians we have to be ready. Arctic sovereignty plans, economic policy to stimulate growth, re-training funds for displaced workforce, environmental sustainability and recovery frameworks are measures Canadians look for in a manifesto these days. Arguing about unborn children and petty investigations will only land both parties in quicksand. These are tough times that call for mature behavior and mature solutions. The Tories are the mature party by definition, let's keep that perception up.

Formulate, Demonstrate, Captivate. That's what gets a good election campaign started.

Why we aren't winning yet

After three weeks of vacationing plus a few days of other sadly more important business to sort out, I'd like to offer a honest opinion as to why the Tories have been shown in a poll again in a smaller lead over the Liberals than they truly deserve. Plus, a poll shows the Party at odds with Quebeckers and Ontarians. In a whole month since the beginning of July's poll, hardly anything has changed.

Quebec first. Declaring the Quebecois a nation within Canada and emphasizing their role in a united federation is excellent PR, however I believe more is needed to sway the complex lot that inhabits the east shore of the Ottawa river. Far from advocating more Quebec-focused policies and subsidies to ailing industries, the central government should be helping (or putting pressure on the QC government) those hit by economic change out of their trade by shifting their focus. Facing the facts, with Chinese workforce and Siberian taiga paper and wood will soon all come from Asia. Aiding the forestry sector and papermaking industry isn't a long-term solution. Why not help shift logging to maple cultivation? With Quebec's soon-to-be negotiating autonomy with France overseas demand for our syrup may well increase if the industry plays its cards well. Just a thought.

Ontario inhabits the realm of my ignorance, but McGuinty has been outsmarting Tory and bolstering the image of the red party in the province. As far as I know he holds the initiative of going on a disputable sales trip to Europe and introducing re-training schemes for displaced automotive industry workforce. Trade, competition, investment and labor mobility are typical Conservative battle horses. Where were our troops?

Recently I read an article in the Globe and Mail titled "The Tories' almost forgotten policy". Forgotten allright, and it's our fault entirely.

Without wanting to sound too pretentious or judgmental, the Party's communications strategy is lacking in appeal to those voters who are wholly uninterested in political wrangling. Therefore rubbishing Stephane Dion is not a long-term vote winner but a mere tool for keeping him at bay. Associating the Green Shift policy with the punchbag Liberal leader is also a double-edged sword.

Steve Janke pointed out that the two provinces expected to take the shaft from the Carbon Tax do not elect one Liberal MP save Ralph Goodale. Pandering to voters in those districts would seem a risky if at all worthwhile time and energy investment. On the other hand Ontarians may see higher taxes trickling down to higher prices at the pump, but the Liberal typical promise of more social programs and dish-outs can outweigh this concern.

So we all get shafted one way or the other, but for the proposing leader two provinces are hopeless and eight may be persuaded to risk income redistribution. Simplistic as it may sound, Dion's gambling with the odds in his favor. Compounded with widespread inbuilt social distaste for the oil industry and its profits, the Green Shaft touches a sensitive nerve in many Canadians' minds.

What can the Party do to send the GS to the rubbish bin? Step one is achieved: discreditation by association. But it isn't enough. The Tories must offer a viable alternative that would ensure both emission reduction and that the money redistributed by an eventual economic adjustment do travel out of oil companies' wallets into those of other Canadians.

Despite a company's only purpose being a profit, a government's duty is to promote investment and growth, especially in times of economic duress. Therefore instead of further reducing the GST the current Government should encourage inter-province investment. Alberta is raking in huge profits with the current oil prices, while Ontario motor industry is in a slump and British Columbians are shafted with the provincial carbon tax.

Tax credits for profits re-routed to viable investment in other provinces could help hammer out a new message:

Liberal Ontario/BC waste and tax, Tory Alberta/SK invest and enrich.

It's time to cut out the wrangling and show Canadians we can not just out-fundraise and out-campaign, but out-smart, out-initiative and out-policy the Liberals as well.

Why economics is the answer

And why Stephane Dion should consider a similar approach to priority-making.

The Copenhagen Consensus, far from jumping on bandwagons and joining senseless scaremongering tactics, groups several prominent economists in order to determine global priorities. The peculiarity of this exercise is the focus on the economics of intervention, rather than other considerations. Cost-benefit analysis may sound insensitive, but it does yield a very commonsensical priority list. They're back, for CC2008.

The outcome of the 2004 Copenhagen Consensus can be found here. This year's topics are Disease, Water & Sanitation, Education, Women & Development, Global Warming, Air Pollution, Malnutrition, Trade Barriers, Conflicts and Terrorism. You can make your own ranking on the Times website.

What's so special about the Copenhagen Consensus? Its 2004 ranking sent the Kyoto accord rock bottom in the priority list, dismissing current climate change strategies as too costly for no benefit, whereas tackling diseases, malnutrition and trade barriers monopolized the top five. It is a politically unbiased recommendation for enhancing development while minimizing the costs associated with it. Rather than feeding dreams and delusions, the Consensus crunches numbers, which are less opinable than the IPCC's scaremongering.

The Times presents some of the criticism aimed at the Consensus:

Further criticism has been directed at the merit of considering these issues purely in terms of cost and benefit. Factors such as social justice, ecological stewardship and political acceptability are also important, but are exceptionally difficult to price.

These factors are also highly irrelevant. The best social justice is not dying of an avoidable disease and having food on your table, not being arrested for no reason and being free from the threat of conflict. Political acceptability, instead, relies on appeasing lobbies which currently set public policy, such as the farm subsidy and CAP lobby. Money speaks louder than politics, thus cold hard data from the Copenhagen Consensus is more likely to ring the right bells in the heads of policymakers than half-baked political arguments that stand no chance against the lobby powers.

Dion should get a bunch of Canadian economists together and let them set his priorities. Maybe then he wouldn't be committing the Carbon Tax political suicide.

Further reading:

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com

A carbon tax alternative that smells

Edmonton Journal (via Canada.com) posts a proposal that would allow the government to hit non-efficient use of fuel without necessarily imposing a carbon tax. I happen to agree with the author that setting a low limit on the price of fuel and offsetting the artificial imbalance by cutting other taxes would definitely avoid the stalls in efficiency developments we saw during earlier fuel price hikes.

It still remains, however, a government meddling. Minimum prices are first and foremost against consumers. Good intentions regarding the environment do not justify imposing a system of values upon the defenceless citizen who has to fill up at the pump. Coming from Italy where certain goods have a government-imposed minimum price I fume at such aberrations being exported elsewhere. Expensive fuel encourages user efficiency, while cheap fuel should encourage efficient extraction. With environmental legislation as it is, cutting corners by polluting more to produce gas cheaper isn't an option anymore.

Where does this leave us? A carbon tax is a con which will further endanger the economy. A minimum fuel price, however, will have subtler effects causing the same damage. If the price of fuel never comes down this piece of legislation would be useless (a Liberal specialty). Set the limit too high and the tax cuts in other areas to balance the grab would divert all government money towards compensating Canadians being defrauded at the pump. If the Liberals dare impose such a threshold their pet boondoggles would be starved of tax dollars.

Where does this leave Stephane Dion? In a bind. Persisting in carbon tax advocacy is political suicide, while pulling the plug on the policy will further portray him as a feeble leader. Switching to a minimum price, however, will only make matters worse, for high minimum prices will starve the government of money (or the consumers) and low minimums will be so useless hiding the policy failure would be a challenging task.

Long Knives in the Liberal Camp

Liberal leader Stephane Dion desperately tries to maintain some order in his caucus by demoting capable critics and allowing rumours of major reshuffles to spread, hurting his most capable potential heirs such as Michael Ignatieff. Meanwhile, the CTV also presents us with some damning poll data from Dion's home province and his own hometown, Quebec city, showing the Liberals rock bottom and the Tories trailing the withering Bloc. L. Ian McDonald commented:

A leader without a base is like a prophet without a homeland

It is in dark times such as these that a wise leader abandons ego and desires for control and embraces the age-old wisdom: the best way to stay in power is to surround yourself with people brighter than you. People who can galvanize support, inspire trust and cast an image of professionalism and ability to discharge great duties. Dion is attempting to do the exact opposite, removing popular aides in order to give more prominence to the likes of Bob Rae. Although that might make him a little more popular in Ontario this is not a successful strategy for the remaining provinces.

It is not a safe route either, as Rae is an ambitious politician who no doubt eyes up the Liberal leadership without necessarily coming across as a viable alternative to Stephen Harper. A Rae leadership, though more colourful than Dion's, would be easier to fire on judging by the man's record in Ontario.

It is time for Dion to realize the danger he is putting his party in, resheath the knives and let a capable team of charismatic true leaders overshadow his blatant inability to keep a party caucus in line.

No referendum, huh?

Pauline Marois wants the PQ to abandon its referendum pledge for the time being. Unsurprizing.

Having realized the continued impunity with which Quebec can pursue its most questionable discriminatory objectives through indiscriminate (pardon the pun) use of the notwithstanding clause and provincial prerogative, Pauline Marois is contemplating maintaining the status quo.

Why? My guess is Madame Marois has the wonderful idea of continuing to wrestle with Ottawa, claim more and more prerogative, continue applying or proposing her insane policies such as the law on Quebec citizenship without the province being hailed before an international body and held accountable for its despicable course. In its perverseness, the current situation allows Quebec's harassment of English speakers and potentially many other categories to be shielded from global ridicule by the cover of the Canadian umbrella and the notwithstanding clause. Smart as she undoubtedly is, Marois has all the interest in preserving Quebec in Canada in order to continue scaring us with insane legislation without fear of reprisal and build up the party's support base.

Marois' stance on pushing the referendum back in the priority list is a decoy, and everyone knows it. Except Dion, of course, who appears to contemplate an independent Quebec sometime:

In Ottawa, of all places, Marois's plan received a somewhat more favourable
reception.
"I think it's a good move," Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion told
reporters after a caucus meeting.
"I think a responsible secessionist leader should not rush to a referendum, should first build strong support, a clear majority for separation and once it's done, it's time to go to a referendum."

Referendum time has passed, people don't want to leave Canada. Unless Dion wants more businesses to move to Toronto his remarks are a destruction of his credibility as a federalist. If he were a chameleon I'd say this time he's shown his true colour.

Stephane "porridge" Dion

How preposterous of Stephane Dion to define the Conservative government as underachiever based solely on one poll result. His cockiness isn't even funny anymore, nor is the Liberals' feebleness. As a successful politician (he seems to style himself such) he should have learned in his long honorable career that the only poll that counts happens at the ballot box, and that for centuries man has known the simple truth: statistics is just another form of lies.

The simple reality that the Liberals are trailing the Conservatives is a sufficient indictment of his policies and his tenure as Leader. However controversial Grits make the Tory legislation sound, Canadians are not ready to board Dion's Titanic, nor will they in the near or far future. Furthermore, excessive emphasis on opinion polls, Mr Dion should have learned from his Labour Party inspirers, conveys an impression of lacking determination and focus on policy.

If Mr Dion were a true leader and true to his party's ideals he'd whip his MPs to bring down the government instead of waiting for favorable opinion polls while betraying his voters on absolutely unacceptable bills from a Liberal perspective. Being a leader involves knowing how to lose with dignity and a clear conscience.

Dion's policy of abstaining isn't "rigid", he says. I guess "runny porridge" describes it better.