Word today is that the Liberals will move to topple the Harper government at their earliest opportunity. Let me say this, if the Liberals force a fall election, it will be a strategic error.

Politicos in Ottawa don’t always have the best read on average Canadians. I think the Liberals under-estimate how sick Canadians are of the political bickering and constant elections that have come with 5 years of minority government. I doubt Canadians love the Conservatives, but they are probably seen right now as the best of a bad lot. They’ve taken a low-risk approach to governing, nothing overly ambitious by any stretch, but at the same time I think most people would say they haven’t done a terrible job either — no major scandals like the previous Liberal government and the economy is showing signs of recovering.

The Liberals need to think about the ballot question. Had the Liberals pulled the plug in February/March after the Conservatives handed down a budget, they might have been able to make a case that the Conservatives were simply too incompetent to be trusted with the economy — after all, only months earlier, Harper argued there wasn’t a problem, that Canada was doing just fine, and even produced a fall budget update that stretched credibility by showing balanced books. The economy in the spring was still in decline and job losses were mounting. But since then, to the average voter, the Conservatives have put in place measures to stimulate the economy (recall most Canadians approved of the revised budget).

Most Canadians will ask “why are we having another election, when we just had one last year?” I think most people will conclude it’s not over anything they will think is worth having a 4th election in 5 years over, but rather because of political gamesmanship. That doesn’t bode well for the Liberals, and even suggests that voters might be willing to finally hand the Conservatives a majority to bring about more stability after 3 consecutive minorities.

Is the economy the ballot issue? (probably) If so, that doesn’t favour the Liberals. Canadians still trust the Conservatives on the economy more than the Liberals. Is it about the environment? Unlikely, the Liberals tried to make that the issue last time but the downturn in the economy overshadowed that; even still, Canadians trust the Greens the most on the environment. Could the Liberals try to piggy-back on the U.S. debate over healthcare and make it the ballot issue? Seems like a stretch. Besides, the NDP is generally viewed as best able to handle that file. Crime? It’s mostly a localized issue and the Conservatives win that issue.

The fact is, the Liberals don’t have an issue to run on right now, and they aren’t seen by Canadians as best able to lead on a single issue. And elections are won or lost on pretty basic messages.

Moreover, while the Liberals enjoyed a bump in the polls in the spring, after Ignatieff was crowned leader, they have done little to build upon or even maintain that support. The polling trend is not favourable for the Liberals, as the Conservatives have rebounded and now lead the Liberals by a few points; in fact, we’re back to were we were last fall. Liberals have deployed their spinsters by arguing the summer is rarely a time when the opposition is in the headlines, so it’s natural to see some falloff, and that’s true to a certain extent. But it doesn’t change the fact that Ignatieff remains largely an unknown to the average voter. And the record of rookie leaders winning elections their first time isn’t good.

The fact is, Canadians need more time to get to know Ignatieff. The Liberals have not yet offered a platform that charts a significantly different course than the Conservatives, and while his approval ratings/positive impressions are greater than his much-maligned predecessor Stephane Dion, they aren’t as high as Harper’s. So if the Liberals are counting on making the election about leadership, I think Canadians will go with the devil they know over the devil they don’t.

So I think that if the Liberals do force a fall election, Stephen Harper may well finally get the majority that has eluded him for so long.

So who is going to win Outremont today? The short answer is I have no idea (but it’s surely going to be either NDPer Thomas Mulcair or Liberal Jocelyn Coulon). Unlike general elections, where the vast majority of people vote by party (about 65% by party + 20% by party leader), by-elections are driven by the particular circumstances and personalities, because the government is not on the line, and often people like to send parties a message on specific issues.

What makes Outremont so interesting is that the NDP have recruited a well-known former Liberal cabinet minister as their candidate, in a riding that has voted Liberal since everyone can remember. Outremont is a pretty progressive riding, and includes part of the Plateau, my former neighborhood. There are a lot of well-established Jewish families and a growing number of nouveau riche, a younger group of affluent francophones. It is this latter group that has changed the make-up of the riding, to the point where it is no longer a safe Liberal seat. Indeed, the nouveau riche will determine the outcome of this by-election, since most of the traditional Liberal support will vote Liberal. The only question here is whether or not the Liberals have enough of their typically strong ground campaign to get out the vote. This is often very difficult in by-elections, and for that reason, Liberals tend not to do well in by-elections. This has much less to do with Stephane Dion’s leadership (as the mainstream media would like everyone to believe) as it does with the fact that the government is not on the line. The stakes are simply not that high for traditional Liberal voters.

What is clear is that many of the nouveau riche want to send the Bloc Quebecois a message that their progressive vote should not be taken for granted. Indeed, the BQ polled 29% here in 2006 and last week’s poll put them at just 14%. The NDP’s policy positions on many issues are not dissimilar to the Bloc, so it’s very likely that the NDP will receive the backing of a good number of Bloc voters. Given that this by-election won’t impact the BQ’s standing in parliament, many might be inclined to vote NDP this time.

A poll from last week showed Mulcair up 38-32 over Coulon. However, we also know that Quebec polls consistently under-estimate the Liberal vote by roughly 4 points. We also know the NDP is typically over-estimated by a couple points (as some Quebecers park their vote with the NDP). So the poll tells me that the Liberals and NDP were both really around 36% support last week. The NDP is out in full force, as a break-through in Quebec would be huge for the party. So, I don’t think the Liberals have an advantage on the ground this time.

It will be interesting to see how the two-person race impacts the votes of other parties. Quebecers like to vote for a winner. So expect the Conservatives and Bloc votes to drop even further. In fact, the Greens might even out-poll the Conservatives. If I were to venture a guess — and it is purely a guess, I might peg support at roughly:

COULON — 36-38%
MULCAIR — 36-38%
GILSON — 11-13%
PILON — 6-8%
DUGUAY — 6-8%
OTHERS — < 1% each

But in by-elections, it's anybody's game. Tell us what you think -- go to our OUTREMONT BY-ELECTION page.

Who are Liberals? We know who NDPers are — they have a clear set of values rooted in democratic socialism. Conservatives, too, are (edit: sometimes) grounded in principles of individualism, family (in the traditional sense), and often faith. But Liberals (both provincially in Ontario and federally) are much harder to understand. They run the gamut from very progressive to distinctly conservative. This “big tent” has earned Liberals, fairly or not, a pejorative branding from both the left and right as united not by principle, but by power (specifically, the lust for it, and the willingness to go along with anything that gets the most votes). And there is a certain degree of truth to this. I’ve seen this firsthand, having met a number of Liberals who I am quite certain would sell out their own mothers if they thought it would help them climb the political ladder. But I’ve also met many Liberals, particularly those who are new converts to the party (resulting from a competitive federal leadership race), who do stand on clear principles — namely social justice, equal opportunity, and a balance between empowering the talents of individuals and protecting collective interests.

Free of the shackles of a decade or more of internal battles (personified most clearly as the fued between Jean Chretien and Paul Martin) — many Liberals appear to have actually done some genuine soul-searching over the past 20 months. A new breed of younger Liberals has emerged that is more idealistic and more progressive than its previous incarnation.

But the question remains — is this new progressive Liberalism genuine, or is it merely a strategy (or merely rhetoric) to win the most votes? After all, following 13 years of relatively easy rule against a divided right, it is now the Canadian left that finds itself divided across Liberal, NDP, Green, and Bloc factions (all of which promote leftist policies to greater or lesser extents). The federal Liberals under Stephane Dion, and provincial Liberals in Ontario under Dalton McGuinty, have sought to unite a centre-left coalition around progressive ideals. It’s a good political strategy, given that about 65-70% of Canadians (and Ontarians) are generally progressive. But it is genuine? Or is it just rhetoric? Will Liberals follow-through on this new-found progressivism if elected? What will Liberals actually do, if given the chance?

The current debate surrounding electoral reform in Ontario is a test of Liberals’ progressivism. On principles alone, if they are the progressives they claim to be, Liberals should undoubtedly be in favour of it. For those Liberals who actually believe the progressive values they are now selling, the choice is clear — a mixed-member proportional voting system is more fair, increases voter choice, improves local accountability, and opens up greater opportunities for women and minorities who have been severely under-represented under the current winner-takes-all system. But for those Liberals who see progressivism as merely a strategy to unite the left and achieve more power for themselves and their allies, the choice is much less clear. They ask, will mixed-member proportional hurt our chances of getting a majority government? (as though ruling unopposed — i.e. “winning” the war — was the only prize worth fighting for, as opposed to actually achieving progressive policies and tangible results)

There have been some signs that Liberals genuinely believe their claimed values. Dalton McGuinty campaigned in 2003 on pursuing electoral reform and followed through (albeit rather late in the game) by creating the Citizens Assembly to carry out that task. Many of his senior cabinet ministers support electoral reform generally and the MMP system recommended by the Citizens Assembly specifically — Deputy Premier and Health Minister George Smitherman, Attorney General Michael Bryant, Municipal Affairs Minister John Gerretsen, for example. And a number of the new young Liberals strongly support MMP.

But there are signs that, once again, some Liberals are willing to sacrifice their values to maximize their quest for power. Opponents within McGuinty’s clan lobbied for and received a super majority threshold (60% support) for the October 10th referendum, making its passage less likely (and skewing the basic tenet of democracy that all votes are equal by making a vote against MMP worth 1.5 times the value of a vote in favour of MMP) — this despite receiving 100% of the power with only 46% support. Some prominent Liberals don’t support the recommendations of the Citizens Assembly — Finance Minister Greg Sorbara chief among them. And other young Liberals, who’ve spent their short lives to date climbing the political ladder — puckering up to those who might one day give them access to power — have also come out against MMP, thereby sacrificing the values to which they purportedly adhere. These Liberals are a part of the “old boys club” (or in the case of the latter, desperately want to be soon accepted into the club). They fear that a legislature that actually reflects the will of the people (as opposed to shutting out minority voices, minority in all sense of the word) will make it harder for them to rule unopposed, as though actually considering the views of all Ontarians is a bad thing. In short, they believe proportional representation will dilute their power. But even here, they are wrong. In fact, MMP would eliminate the inherent PC seat advantage that exists in Ontario (at 37% support each, the PCs get 52 seats to the Liberals 44) — with MMP, you get what the people think you deserve, no more, no less.

Every now and then, a pivotal moment comes along that asks people to look deep inside themselves. The choice of whether to support MMP or not represents such a pivotal moment for Liberals. The Ontario Liberal Party’s origins lie in standing up against the conservative patrician rule of the Family Compact. Liberals stood up for the people against the elites. While the Tories pandered exclusively to the Protestant majority, the Liberals united Catholics and Protestants, urban and rural. Liberals were inclusive and fought for fairness. Will Liberals today have the courage that their predecessors had and once again stand up for inclusiveness and fairness? Will Liberals stand up and support the recommendations of the people (the Citizens Assembly they created)? We know most NDPers and Greens will support it. And we know that most PCers will not. So electoral reform will live or die at Liberal hands. I pray that today’s Liberals are as courageous as their forebearers of yesterday.

One of the most hotly contested local nomination battles in the country concluded today with Justin Trudeau winning the Liberal nomination in the Montreal riding of Papineau. He was touted as the underdog going into the race since most did not believe he had enough second-ballot support to win (as it turned out, he didn’t need it, just barely winning on the first ballot — he got 690 votes, he needed 635 on the first ballot to win). So, for some, Trudeau’s win will come as a moderate surprise. To others, his win will be greeted with a roll-of-the-eyes, with the belief that Trudeau was “given” the nomination because of his name. I think the latter respondents would do well to re-think that position, especially in light of how difficult this nomination battle was.

I had the opportunity to talk to Trudeau when I covered the Liberal Leadership Convention in Montreal last December. I came away thinking that Trudeau was, like all politicians, part drama (indeed, acting is part of his background), but mostly I felt he was sincere in his desire to help the least fortunate among us. He faces a catch-22: he has been judged harshly because he will be compared to his father (with some unfairly concluding that he doesn’t have his father’s intellect), but he has also be judged by others, especially in Quebec, precisely because he is too much like his father in his belief in the unity of Canadian citizenship. Damned if he is, damned if he isn’t.

Personally, I believe that Trudeau has been given unfairly harsh treatment, since most of us have not yet seen who he is or what he can do. Make no mistake, Justin Trudeau won today’s nomination in part because he is the son of Pierre Elliot Trudeau. But that doesn’t mean that Trudeau is unworthy of the nomination in his own right. Indeed, winning nominations (and elections for that matter) has always been something of a popularity contest. So that his brand-name helped him win should be no more or less punished than many candidates who win because of their name (Peter MacKay, for example?). Trudeau has used the notoriety his lineage has given him to fight for worthy causes and there’s nothing wrong with that. I have seen how his articulate and passionate (some might say romanticizing…) speeches have the potential to rally people (especially young people) to act. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

Why should we expect him to be his father’s equal? He will be his own person and make his own contribution in his own way. I think it is incumbent upon us to let him prove himself before harshly judging him. He has fought and won his nomination. That was a first test. But he still must face Vivian Barbot in the next election. It will be another close battle. And should he win, I think it would be fair to say that having won a tough nomination and a tough election that he will have earned his way into Parliament. The ball is in his court — he must prove himself. But he should be allowed to do so without being pre-judged because he is a Trudeau.

Canadians are often proud that their political processes are not dominated by the vast amounts of money spent to influence voters in the United States. But Canadians would also be naive to think that money doesn’t influence performance here in Canada. So while our campaign finance laws limit the total money spent, it still plays a big role.

I will offer one example. Take a look at what was arguably the most competitive province in 2006 — British Columbia. Here is a comparison of the average money spent per riding and the average votes received per riding.

The Greens easily had the best bang for the buck spent — with each vote costing just $1.30. This differs considerably from the other three major parties, which ranged from about $2.98 for the NDP to $3.88 for the Conservatives. The Liberals were in the middle at $3.34 per vote.

Put another way — the Conservatives spent 21 times what the Greens did and received 7 times more votes. The NDP spent over 12 times more and the Liberals spent over 13 times more and both received about 5 times more votes.

It really begs the question: how well would the Greens do if they were as well funded as the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP?

Liberal leader Stephane Dion has agreed to explore for electoral reform going forward. It appears that Green Party leader Elizabeth May not only managed to convince Dion not to run a candidate against her in Central Nova, but she also extracted a promise to seriously look at electoral reform. Dion doesn’t favour pure list-PR, but not many electoral reformers in Canada do (most prefer adding a small element of proportionality to our existing system of locally-elected representatives — mixed-member proportional (MMP) is often suggested as the best alternative for Canada). In the past, Dion is on record as supporting MMP, which was recently recommended by the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly (and it is also the system being pursued in Quebec, New Brunswick and what was recommended by the Law Commission of Canada federally). In his interview with Jeff Jedras, Dion said:

What I dislike in (the current system) though is the over-exaggeration of regional concentrations of the vote. With 50 per cent of the vote in Ontario we have been able in the past to have almost 100 per cent of the seats, and with 1/3 of the votes in the West we were unable to have a significant number of seats. It gives the sense we’re a party for Ontario and a party unable to have support in the West, when it’s not really the case.

One day, assume that you have a government elected where it is Quebec that is out of the government because of this electoral system, with 25 per cent of the vote, and the government has no or few seats on Quebec, and you have a separatist leader trying to have a referendum at the same time. This would be very dangerous for the country.

Because of that, I’m open to consider (electoral reform), and to be frank with all of you I wrote a piece…that will be published soon advocating for consideration for a system that would be very close to the German one, that means you would have a threshold of five per cent to receive compensatory seats, and the compensatory seats would be given on a PR system. I don’t have time to explain it (all) today on the phone, but I’m open…to consider a change in the electoral system.

Keep an eye on what Dion says in the coming months, as the nation’s largest province enters a referendum campaign to decide whether to change to a mixed-member proportional electoral system (the referendum will be October 10, 2007).

According to Angus Reid Strategies, the Conservative attack ads on Stephane Dion didn’t work.

Before viewing the ads, 40% of Canadians said Dion would make the best Prime Minister of Canada, while 36% selected Stephen Harper. After viewing the spots, the percentages remained almost identical, with Dion at 39% and Harper at 36%.

Anybody know how much money the Conservatives wasted on these ads?

Gerard Kennedy will run federally in his old provincial riding of Parkdale-High Park. As you were…

With the Conservatives set to unveil American-style personal attack ads that portray Stephane Dion as a weak leader and a weak environment minister, I wonder how Canadians will respond? The old Liberals certainly dished out their fair share of attack ads, but it seems to me that they attacked the Reform/Alliance/Conservative ideology, portraying it as too right-wing for Canadians rather simply attack Stephen Harper as a person.

Having lived in the U.S. for a while, the single most repugnant aspect of American politics is the absolute lack of policy debate. In the U.S., genuine policy debates have been entirely replaced with personal attacks and mudslinging. Canadian politics has traditionally been different — it has been possible to debate different approaches to different issues, whether it be health, the environment, trade, child care, education, etc. Canadians should be wary of any party that resorts to personal attacks. Is it fair game and an effective strategy to attack your opponents’ policies? Yes. Is it fair game and effective to use personal attacks? Despite the claims by party insiders, personal attacks usually end up driving as many people away as they attract. The Liberal attack on Cheri DiNovo backfired (despite claims by koolaid-drinkers that internal polling went up after they launched their attacks). PC attacks on Dalton McGuinty in 2003 proved impotent. And Conservatives know how well attacking Jean Chretien’s facial disability worked. At very best, personal attacks are a net zero. Most importantly, they send a message that you afraid to debate your opponent on substance. If Canada follows the American lead down the path of personal attacks, our public policy debates will suffer. Of that, there is no doubt. I hope Canadians won’t allow this to happen.

Was Dion an effective environment minister? I don’t know. Why? Because he never had the chance to implement his climate change plan because Paul Martin was paralyzed by the perpetual threat of an election and his own personal inability to set priorities and act upon them. He wanted to be everyone’s friend, and by doing so, he was nobody’s friend. Lots of promises, but few results. What I do know is that people who know the environment file — like Green Party leader Elizabeth May — deeply respect Dion and the work he did hosting the Montreal climate change conference and putting together a plan with teeth; she told me so herself. Would I trust an opposition party leader who is an internationally respected environmental advocate over an opposition party leader who has a history of denying the existence of climate change? You bet.

Is Dion an effective leader? Again, I don’t know. He has just been elected Liberal leader, after all. If leadership is about setting priorities and achieving results — qualities that Stephan Harper has (even if his priorities may not be highest on my list) — then I think Dion displays strong leadership. Unlike Martin, there is no doubt as to what Dion’s priorities are: 1) Economic Prosperity, 2) Social Justice, and 3) the Environment — and, importantly, the interrelationship of these three priorities. Dion must prove, however, that he is results-driven, not merely plan-driven. But he is surrounded by people like Gerard Kennedy, who are will push for results every chance they get (as Kennedy often says, “we will be judged not by what we say, but what we do”). So there is reason to hope that the New Liberals will do what they say they will.

Time will tell whether the Conservative attacks on Dion will pay dividends for Harper. I can’t help but think that launching a personal attack on an opposition leader when we aren’t even in the midst of an election campaign shows that the Conservatives are worried. How do you think Canadians will react?

P.S. Here’s one of the ads:

Having returned to L.A., after a stopover is Cambridge, MA, I thought it was worth reflecting on the Liberal leadership race. While partisan Liberals will tell you that the Convention changed the nature of the party in fundamental ways, I am more skeptical.

Is the party more united after the Convention than before?
You bet. Stephane Dion is well-liked within Liberal circles (even though he is loathed by a good many Quebecers). People say he has no enemies, although he was somewhat pedantic towards less-than-meticulate MPs when he first arrived in Ottawa. But, let’s be honest, Dion was a compromise candidate. You could sense that in the room after the intial euphoria wore off. For the one-third of the room that were Kennedy and Dion supporters, they were genuinely excited about the result. For the rest, they were happy that someone else didn’t win (namely, Bob Rae or Michael Ignatieff, didn’t get elected). The Party is in better shape with Dion than with Ignatieff or Rae, who turned out to be rather polarizing figures.

So does Stephane Dion’s election mean a shift in Liberal culture?
Maybe a little bit. An emphasis on economic prosperity and social justice has always been a Liberal trademark, although Dion’s academic background, rather than Paul Martin’s business background should mean a great emphasis on policy. Certainly, there will be a greater emphasis on the environment. It remains to be seen whether Dion can win votes on sustainable development (I’d like to think so, however it often falls on deaf ears and rarely becomes a ballot question). But, Dion represents continuity with the past, more so than a break.

Will Dion’s election mean a more results-oriented Liberal Party?
I have my doubts. Throughout the campaign, Dion was rather defensive about his record as Environment Minister, when he put together a plan, but says didn’t have time to implement it. Perhaps that’s true. But, in my experience, academics like Dion are better at theory than practice, and are often unwilling to make the messy tradeoffs necessary to turn a perfect plan into less-than-perfect action. If Ignatieff and Kennedy’s people are given an opportunity to rebuild the party, the culture could change to reflect Kennedy’s motto “we will be judged by what we do, not what we say”. On the environment, plans are not good enough, real results are all that matters at this point. If Dion gets that, then hopefully he will learn to “get it done” (as Ignatieff chastized him for not doing before).

Does Stephane Dion’s election represent a victory for the grassroots?
Not exactly. Certainly, delegates did not follow the will of the power brokers at the Convention. But I wouldn’t characterize Dion’s campaign as a grassroots-led affair since he had a good share of long-time Liberal organizers on his team. Recall that much of Dion’s momentum came late in the campaign when he lured a lot of ex-officios his way. However, his fundraising efforts (the $100 revolution) were certainly the most grassroots of the four frontrunners. I think Kennedy’s campaign was more bottom-up (and Martha Hall Findlay’s even more so) — remember Kennedy wasn’t even on the radar of people outside of Toronto, and not having been involved with federal politics, he relied heavily on mobilizing local support. So to the extent that Kennedy and his team become a central part of the rebuilding effort, then Dion’s victory should change the way policies are set. But I have my doubts. Most academics, as “experts” themselves, tend to place an emphasis on hard data that specialists provide; this often runs counter to listening to everyday people, which is more Kennedy’s style. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

(more…)