Profiling the Canadian electorate

If you like to think you’re hard to read and can’t imagine being pigeonholed, stay away from Vote Compass, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s election quiz. In less than ten minutes, it will figure you out. All you have to do is check off thirty simple questions. The Compass questionnaire will assign you a party label and leave you feeling a little better informed about your politics and partisan home.

Click on: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/votecompass/

The CBC reports that more than 400,000 people have played already. Although there must be a lot of repeaters—if your first innocent ten minutes leave you lost or embarrassed, you can go at it again.  Each question offers six responses (strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree, don’t know.) Without turning yourself inside out, you can move along the continuum or duck the issue with a “don’t know.”

If “don’t know” leaves you feeling stupid after a while and your problem is with the questions not your general knowledge, you can click on “neither agree nor disagree.” Try that on every question and you’ll be told—surprise, surprise—that you’re a Canadian Liberal.

Yet, some of the questions are assertions of fact that have only one intelligent answer. For instance, “When there is an economic problem, government spending usually makes matters worse.” A serious person, whether on the right or left, would have to strongly disagree. You may think economic hardship is somehow good for people, but you can’t deny that providing money helps relieve economic problems. Conversely, if they’d asked whether there are any limits to what governments can do most everyone would have to strongly agree.

Furthermore, the government in the questions isn’t identified. In a federal state this is negligent. For instance, the questionnaire proposes, “The government should fund daycare instead of giving money directly to parents.” How do you reply if you believe that federal governments shouldn’t be in the daycare business but that provinces and communities most definitely should?   

Initially, it’s pleasant to find out where you fit—when you’re using a real compass, it’s a relief to discover that it does get you out of the woods.  However, after two tries, two fellow malcontents and I are still not ready to accept that were big L-Liberals.  

According to Vote Compass designers at the CBC, would you have to be an economic illiterate or social reactionary to be closer to the New Democrats or Conservatives?

Betting on a spring election in Canada

Expectations ratchet up every weekend as the pundits assemble the scenarios and report the telling details—planes are readied and painted with decals, election dates are pinned on calendars, strategies for each party are offered up and critiqued. Still missing, however, is the reason (a) the government or (b) the entire opposition would decide that now’s the time for another election—the career ending or extending moment for Conservative leader Stephen Harper and Liberal Michael Ignatieff and New Democrat Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois Gilles Duceppe. Inevitability fills in for motive.

Yet, what would drive the three leaders in opposition to waltz off the stage in perfect harmony?

The latest scenario in the press goes like this: the opposition will force a no-confidence motion before the March 22nd budget. Since the government appears to be impregnable on the economy, it makes sense to make ethics the decisive issue—the excuse for an election. 

Let’s take a look at this scenario from Jack Layton and the NDP’s perspective. The constitution of the man and his party argues against it.

First, ethics isn’t a New Democrat issue—it’s their birth right. For two generations New Democrats have shunned any real chance for political power for the alternative benefits of being morally superior to Liberals and Conservatives. They never distinguished one set of opportunists from another. Will they help Michael Ignatieff make ethics a Liberal issue to use against the Conservatives?

New Democrats thrive in minority Parliaments not because they believe in weak divided government but because they have a measure of political power in them. They can win concessions for working families, seniors and the poor. For five years they’ve claimed to have propped up Stephen Harper in return for tangible benefits for deserving Canadians. . New Democrats believe they excel on economic and on bread and butter issues. Rather than wait to see what they won—or failed to win—in the next budget, will they force an election only days before?

Second, to avoid being fatally weakened by the Liberals, the NDP absolutely must campaign as the growing party of the future, the logical new home for center left voters—the new progressive opposition. After three tries, can Jack Layton now expect to win more votes from the Liberals? Can he create the momentum necessary to double NDP representation in Parliament?

His recent hip surgery is compromising. He will have trouble getting on and off of planes. However, that’s only a temporary disability and, anyway, his face conveys more enthusiasm than his opponents in full stride. However, his long term health prospects are still in question. Jack Layton loves to campaign and wants to be well. But can he assure voters that he could be a vigorous leader of the opposition or co-partner in a minority government?

Voters will not put the NDP in second place out of sympathy or because they can’t keep saying no. And they will not vote for small parties over large ones simply to keep Parliament fractured.

With the wind on no one’s back, forcing an election only makes sense if Stephen Harper is too hateful to face at Question Period every morning. Is Ottawa in such a state of rage?

  

Running on the Canadian economy leaves too much to the imagination

A good plan for an election—an election Harper truly may not want—offers offer more sizzle than just promising to keep a steady hand on a fragile economic recovery. Managing the economy and surviving five years with a minority has given Harper one precious asset—a reputation for competence. However, that reputation has to be put to work or his unlovable personality will be the issue.

The case for the opposition was effectively framed by Thomas Walkom of the Toronto Star:

“The Conservatives will play on this by presenting Harper as the Buckley’s cough syrup of politics — hard to swallow but good for you. The opposition parties will showcase a different view.

Which leaves it to us. How much do we dislike him? How much do we mistrust him? Do we dislike and mistrust the other party leaders more?

Is he the strong Prime Minister required by perilous times? Or is he just nasty?”

Click on:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/949101--walkom-there-s-only-one-election-issue-harper

The logic of making Harper the issue appropriately reflects electoral circumstances. He’s so close to a majority government now that it is fair to ask: do you want more of Stephen Harper in your face? Do you want to give that wilfull man even more power?

Here’s a proposition for the Conservatives to consider. Competence is a two edged sword: as merely a prize for surviving, it leaves Harper looking like a bully. However, as a tool to get big things done—to break down opposition to change—it makes the promise of leadership possible.

Harper could make a winning case for a majority if he put his reputation for competence behind a new agenda. Whether negotiating a constitutional amendment to democratize the Senate or a new deal with the US or the provinces, Harper could make iffy good ideas look like they’d have their best chance under his leadership.  

Cabin Fever in Canadian politics

You can see the sun set later each day and you itch to go out. Cabin fever—being shut up in a small place for too long—generates restlessness, irritability, forgetfulness and distrust of others. It makes logical thinking difficult and can drive you out into the killing cold. Cabin fever is consuming Ottawa.

There isn’t a hint that the capital’s political leaders and their followers are equipping themselves to break the layers of ice that trap partisan and national ambitions in Canada. Yet, everyday they inch us closer to a $300 million election—to shake hands, to hustle and to walk the streets of anywhere but Ottawa.

Yet political activists are inching themselves in all sorts of directions most of the time. The clues, indeed, may not be clues that anything will happen.

For instance, it’s conventional wisdom that Conservatives are running negative advertisements to get the edge going into a spring election. The latest clue was an “Urgent” fund-raising letter to raise money they don’t need to pay for more advertising. Click on: http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Election+weeks+Tories/4323189/story.html 

A string of recent polls that place Harper in a strong lead are, allegedly, further evidence that there will be an election.

All three clues, however, make equally compelling sense of Harper’s public preference to not have an election this spring. The only way to keep a minority government going is to maintain high enough polling numbers to discourage the opposition. As former US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld said elsewhere in a different contest: “Weakness is provocative.” With a 10% to 15% polling lead on the Liberal opposition, logically, Harper has secured political peace.

Excellent planning and thorough pre-campaign preparation doesn’t necessarily lead to an election. Plans are designed to sit on shelves as well as inform action. A dumb election, like a dumb war, still requires a dumb decision.

For Conservative watchers, there was one interesting clue in the fundraising letter: “Ignatieff would weaken our borders. . .”  Are the Conservatives thinking about selling the perimeter negotiations with Obama as part of a larger campaign on immigration, refugees and law and order, rather than primarily a measure to enhance access to the US?

For Liberals to ponder: What if Ignatieff’s sinking leadership numbers have little to do with the Conservative’s stale attack commercials? Is it possible that after being tested as a Canadian political star for 6 years and Liberal leader for 2 he can’t win and that his leadership, not framing the ballot issue, should be on their agenda?

Is the cabin fever in Ottawa only going to perpetuate the status quo?