Featured:
Monday, February 8, 2010 12:22 PM EST
A deep split on spending versus restraint
As G7 finance ministers ponder the economic choices facing the world, all of them are no doubt thinking about domestic political consequences too. For Canada's Jim Flaherty, this next budget may be the most challenging one of his career to date.
The Prime Minister and the Finance Minister had been signalling they are anxious to unwind the stimulus spending programs that, alongside vaporizing tax revenues, took the country to the largest deficit we've ever seen. In January the signal to voters appeared to be "brace yourselves." More recently their line seems to be more like "we've got your backs."
The public might have accepted draconian spending cuts if that's what emerged in the next federal budget, but if so, it would be with scepticism, and not only from the left side of the spectrum. Across the country, Canadians are pretty evenly split on the merits of continuing stimulus spending to create jobs or controlling it to get us back to balanced budgets.
Choices of this type commonly reveal regional and partisan divides, but today is different, as the attached table shows. Sharp spending cuts would risk alienating roughly half of Conservative voters. Failure to rein in the deficit will make the other half anxious.
But if the politics of these choices are tough for Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty, they aren't a slam dunk for Michael Ignatieff either. If he rails against spending cuts, almost half of his supporters will wonder if he cares enough about balanced budgets. If he tries to regain the upper hand by criticizing the government for spending too much, he risks the other half.
Alberta is traditionally home to Canada's most rock-ribbed fiscal conservatives, with Quebec and Atlantic Canada at the opposite end of the spectrum. But these differences are unusually muted at the moment. Finally, a too-conservative budget risks greater alienation among women, a hard choice for Mr. Harper to make, given the importance of women to his hopes of a broader, bigger coalition.
All in all, a recipe for one of the more high-stakes budgets, requiring thoughtful and persuasive leadership from all sides, and suggesting an audience more attentive and anxious than has been the case in years.
Link to this post
Saturday, February 6, 2010 7:39 PM EST
Prorogation a curve bender, not a game changer
It's been a while since circumstances allowed me a bit of time to reflect on national affairs, but now seems a good moment to pick up the thread. I've been sifting through a fair bit of public-opinion data in recent weeks, and as dust has been settling around Prime Minister Stephen Harper's prorogation play here's what I make of the political situation as it stands today.
Ironically, just as everyone was concluding that nothing good could come for Canada from shutting down Parliament, a couple of positive story lines may be emerging.
First, Michael Ignatieff has shifted from a grinding, over-revving second gear into an energetic, smoother third gear. He may still need more pace and agility, but there's no doubt he's doing better.
He's sounding more like a man who's comfortable in his skin. He's putting ideas into the market, marking some territory that the Liberals intend to own. More useful still, he no longer looks like someone twitching to find partisan advantage right now, this moment, every day. Letting partisan advantage be the back-story, not the billboard, is serving him well. He needed to acknowledge as he did, that his pursuit of an unpopular election had put him offside with a lot of accessible voters. So, good for all of us, that a leading choice has become more competitive, and not just by default.
At the same time, his chief rival, Stephen Harper, has been tuning up his own game. I suppose one could make the case that he might have done a better job arguing the reasons for prorogation. But I happen to feel it was pretty clear to most voters what the move was about, and trying to convince them otherwise would have only risked more people feeling he was dissembling. Better to take your lumps and move on sometimes.
Meanwhile on the international stage, Mr. Harper is looking like the kind of Prime Minister many Canadians yearn for. In recent months he's pursued our economic interests with successful visits to India, and China, and some dogged diplomacy with the United States resulted in a notable win on the Buy American policy file. His handling of the tragedy in Haiti was resonant with the compassion Canadians feel themselves. While he's taking a drubbing in Quebec, elsewhere he has been finessing a position on global climate change that had political risk written all over it. He seems on his way to establishing that "lack of error" on the world stage is no longer the measure of success, but table stakes.
So where does all this net out?
Today's dead heat in the polls suggests a good stretch for the Liberals and a bad run for the Conservatives. I remain of the view that the act of prorogation hasn't been a "game changer," but maybe a "curve bender." Serendipitously, soft voters around the centre of the spectrum who were unhappy with Mr. Harper's move began to look more closely at Mr. Ignatieff just as he was sharpening his focus and skills. But moving from 28 per cent to 32 per cent connotes progress, not triumph. Liberals enjoying this better mood will want to take note of the way Mr. Harper has been evolving, and recognize that he continues to become a more mature, seasoned and effective political leader too.
Maybe it's a "cup half full" mindset, but I can't help but wonder if we are heading for a different kind of election, one with less defensive voting, (people voting to avoid the outcome they most dislike) and more of a vigorous contest of appealing ideas and respected personalities.
Sunday, January 10, 2010 12:17 PM EST
How to make prorogation stick
There are a number of reasons voters might take issue with the decision by the Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament.
Not all of them are equally potent political opportunities for opposition parties. And so choosing to focus on the most powerful argument is a critical part of the job of an opposition leader.
Let's review the most common themes used so far by critics of the government, from the standpoint of what's most likely to resonate with the largest number of voters. (Not to be confused with an analysis of the substantive merits of any of these arguments.)
First, the argument that ending this session prevents Parliament from getting to the bottom of the Afghan detainee issue. This is useful in that it speaks to the motive of the government, that they were trying to outrun an issue that was getting close to burning them.
But the reality is that the substance of that issue wasn't becoming a major political force. Too few people were paying attention, there was a lot of "he said, he said" to it, and people were struggling with whether to be more concerned about the original events, the over-hostile reaction of the government to the allegations, or the possibility that an attempt was made to cover things up.
Second is the argument that this use of the power to prorogue is a massive breach of our conventions when it comes to parliamentary process. For this argument to be the spark that breaks our political stalemate, a lot more people would need to know what our conventions were, and how this act will really affect the functioning of democracy as it touches their lives. These issues have good resonance with about 25 per cent of the population, but not so much with the rest.
Michael Ignatieff looked like he was getting close to the right nerve ending in his press conference the other day. While the media headline was his reference to this being a "crazy" way to run a government, I gather he also said Mr. Harper was revealing arrogance.
Arrogance is one of the quickest ways to get a pink slip for a politician in Canada.
We sometimes think that Pierre Trudeau proved otherwise, but I think you could make a better case that his great electoral success was diminished in 1972 and 1979 by the chronic perception that he was arrogant. Along the same lines, one could make a pretty good argument that ritual public self-effacement was Jean Chrétien's "go-to" pitch, and it worked pretty well for him.
I doubt that this aversion to pretension is unique to Canadians, but I'll wager that we are among the people on the planet who most find it obnoxious. Mr. Harper has tended to have a good grasp of this fact, and has regularly stressed his humble hockey dad, Tim-Horton friendly DNA.
Doubtless his actions last month upset voters who were concerned about the Afghan detainee issue. For sure, he's awakened a concern about democracy and process among the 25 per cent who are grassroots opinion leaders. But there is reason to wonder if the passage of time will mean these specific issues slip below the radar screen.
For opposition leaders (and other concerned Canadians), the surest way to make this issue stick is to hammer away that this decision is born of a profound arrogance, and chronicle how it fits a troubling pattern. This would create the potential to destabilize partisan lines, and bring into play the one in three Conservative supporters who already feel awkward trying to defend this action to their friends and neighbours.
(Photo: Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press)
Thursday, December 31, 2009 1:43 PM EST
No fear of the opposition
The last time Prime Minister Harper pulled the plug on Parliament, he did so because he feared the combined strength of the opposition parties. This time, he is doing so because he has no fear of them.
In announcing this week's decision Mr. Harper probably calculated that the opposition, especially the Liberals, would be unable to muster an effective public attack on his decision to prorogue, despite the fact that it doesn't look all that pretty under scrutiny.
He would have felt secure in the belief that absent a sustained, effective attack by the opposition, most Canadians will let this decision pass.
As Jeffrey Simpson articulated so well recently, the country’s politics is imprisoned in a vicious cycle of disengagement. What caused the cycle to start is an imponderable, a chicken and egg question. But it is taking its toll on our political system, and probably something we should all be more concerned about. Many voters have come to pay so little attention to what goes on in Ottawa, they may be hard pressed to know why this decision to prorogue should matter to them. Engaging them and making that case is the role of the Opposition.
Monday, December 28, 2009 5:20 PM EST
Obama's new teachable moment
Janet Napolitano's response to the attempted terrorist attack on Flight 253 is, for President Obama, a "teachable moment". He should ask for her resignation, and show everyone who needs to know that rank incompetence will not be tolerated in his Cabinet.
The President has had a tough enough year.
He's been spending (China's) money at a rate that's scaring even the left. He ground an ungainly health reform bill, loaded with pork, through the legislative branch, praying that over time, mainstream voters will come to see it as progress. He's committing more lives and treasure to the fight in Afghanistan, with an end game that sounds more hopeful than likely.
Monday, December 14, 2009 8:36 AM EST
How Obama shapes our environmental outlook
I drafted several questions that Harris Decima included in a nationwide phone survey two weeks ago, the results of which have been released here over the last couple of days. In this final piece, the focus is on expectations of Canada at Copenhagen, blending economic and environmental matters, and what President Barack Obama means for expectations of our own government. Here's what we found:
• Half the sample (500 of 1,000 respondents) was read: "Canada should do as much as it can to solve the climate change problem." Ninety four per cent of the sample agreed with that statement. An unequivocal declaration of support for action, it would seem. But is it completely unequivocal?
• The other half of the sample was presented with "Canada should do as much as it can to solve the climate change problem, without putting too much pressure on the economy." Enthusiasm for this version of our commitment stands at 80 per cent.
In one sense, this is hardly revelatory: if offered the choice, people would like to have the best of all possible worlds. But it also reflects the same trepidation that affected support for Stéphane Dion's Green Shift. Voters evaluate government holistically, rather than looking at prosperity or sustainability in isolation. They want government to make reasoned choices, not only to embrace their passions.
Sunday, December 13, 2009 6:28 PM EST
Is a deal in Copenhagen crucial to Canadians?
The idea of a global pact to ease environmental pressures has long sounded like a good one to most voters in Canada. And, as concern about the health of the planet has mounted, so too has the sense of urgency about achieving a breakthrough of this nature.
In the second of a three-part series on environmental attitudes, I want to explore some of the contradictions and nuances in public opinion. I drafted several questions that Harris Decima included in a nationwide telephone survey two weeks ago, the results of which are released here.
Yesterday, we looked at how Canadians feel the world is doing at addressing environmental concerns. Today, let's examine how they feel about the need for an agreement in Copenhagen.
Half of the sample (500 of the 1,000 respondents) was read the following: "Whether there is a binding climate change deal in Copenhagen is crucial to the future of the health of the planet." Seventy one per cent agreed with that statement.
The obvious, and not incorrect conclusion, is that the most Canadians expect world leaders, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, to make a determined effort to make something better happen at this conference than resulted from the last one.
But that finding reveals only one aspect of how people feel about the need for a deal.
To find out how people might react if a deal can't be reached in Copenhagen, the other half of the sample was presented with this statement "Whether there is a deal in Copenhagen or not is not critical, as there will be other ways and opportunities for countries to agree on how to deal with environmental issues." A majority, 62 per cent, agreed with that statement.
Friday, December 11, 2009 4:52 PM EST
Explaining Canada's green contradiction
In the run-up to Copenhagen, I designed a series of questions that my colleagues at Harris Decima added to a nationwide public opinion poll last week. The results are being made public here, for the first time, starting today and continuing for a couple more posts.
The idea was to shed a bit of light on what might seem like contradictions in public opinion, but that I see as different dimensions of how Canadians come at the environment (and many other issues for that matter).
Let’s start with the question of how people feel the world is doing at addressing environmental concerns.
In this new poll, half of the full sample of 1,000, randomly selected, was asked if they agreed with the statement that “the world is making too little progress on environmental issues.” Fully 78 per cent said they agreed, which would leave you with the clear impression that there is a sense of urgency felt by most Canadians. An interpretation that would be accurate, but at the same time limited in the insight it offers.
There’s a separate dimension that needs to be understood here. The other 500 people in the sample were read a different statement: “I think the world is making progress on many environmental issues,” to which 69 per cent said they agreed. The fact that people think the world is not starting at square one in tackling environmental issues moderates their level of anxiety, and heightens their optimism about our collective ability to succeed in meeting the serious challenges facing the planet.
So what are the implications of these numbers for business, environmental NGOs and political leaders?
Certainly one headline is the environment remains a massively shared priority, and that almost everyone wants to see more effort and better results. More than anything else, corporate and political leaders must avoid appearing indifferent or intransigent on climate change and other environmental concerns.
Having said that, the findings also signal that this priority is nuanced, that the public is worried but also somewhat hopeful based on the progress they see going on already. This affords breathing room to find the best possible solutions, compared to situations when fear or outrage dominate opinion and inspire a rush to action, sometimes ill considered.
In Canada, not the most partisan place in the world by any stretch of the imagination, it’s really not that hard to keep it between the lines. The majority of Green Party, NDP and Bloc supporters agree that the world is making progress, even if they fervently want more. The majority of Conservative supporters agree that the world isn’t doing enough, even though they are more comfortable than others with the progress being made.
Some will see these numbers as evidence that Canadians are incoherent or inconsistent. I see exactly the opposite: the Canadian habit of blending progressive and pragmatic values.
Tomorrow, what do people feel about the importance of Copenhagen?
(Photo: A woman looks at a wind-energy display in Copenhagen today. Adrian Dennis/AFP/Getty Images)
Wednesday, December 9, 2009 5:46 PM EST
The bind Ottawa is in
Last week wasn't a good one for the Conservatives on the Afghan detainee file, but this week is making it seem like it was.
Today's statement by Canada's Chief of Defence Staff opens up a whole new set of awkward questions for the government. Questions so uncomfortable that the opposition may well find the momentum necessary to cause a public inquiry. The next several days on this file will be an good test of the re-organizing Liberal opposition.
The most challenging question implicit in today's events is why the information General Walter Natynczyck revealed this afternoon came to light so long after this issue blew up, and followed extraordinarily aggressive attacks on Richard Colvin's credibility. General Rick Hillier's rage at Mr. Colvin now looks well over the top, based on what his successor said today.
When you peel away the layers of detail, today's revelation is even more evidence that our troops were apprehensive that detainees they handed over to the ANP would be tortured. This alone makes it impossible for the Conservatives to continue with the argument that to push this issue is to somehow disrespect our troops. In fact, the opposite case could more easily be made: that the full truth should be revealed to ensure that the reputation of our troops is upheld.
In taking such a hostile tone to their questioners, the Conservatives bet heavily that nothing would come to light that would shift the moral high ground they argued they owned. That bet appears lost. Yet another example of how hyper-partisanship often causes self-inflicted wounds.
Today's information does a lot to substantiate the crediblity of Mr. Colvin, who was already recovering the upper hand in recent days. It adds to questions about how committed the Harper cabinet is to transparency. It creates even more distance between the CDS and the Defence Minister, something hard to imagine given the gap that had already emerged in the last few days.
A while ago, I wrote that there would need to be more evidence to corroborate Mr. Colvin and a process by which that information came to light, in order for this issue to create political consequences. Both of those conditions have been met, and while Copenhagen, Christmas and the Olympics will all give breathing space to the government, the government is now faced with a risk-filled dillemma.
If an inquiry is inevitable, they should avoid looking as though they were dragged kicking and screaming into it. If they gamble that stonewalling will work, they may lose that gamble, and look like they cared too little about doing the right thing to safeguard the international honor of Canada.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009 9:00 AM EST
Conflict vs. collaboration
Greenpeace scales Canada’s Parliament buildings, delivering a message that inaction on climate change is killing hundreds of thousands of people a year. What will most Canadians make of this? Here’s my take.
Most voters like that environmental NGOs have helped us all become more aware of pressures on the planet. But now, the tendency is to want ENGOs to shift gears, to step back from perpetual confrontation and conflict and put more effort into collaborating with others. Less theatrics and more solutions.
When it seemed nobody was concerned about the environment, and no positive change was occurring at all, this week’s banner-draping ploy would have been seen as a legitimate way to get the planet on the agenda. That was then, but things have changed.
Nowadays, people may quarrel about whether enough is changing quickly enough. But most see signs of improvement in auto and other manufacturing sectors, sustainable resources management, wildlife protection, public transit, green building, power generation, waste reduction, paper, metal and plastic recycling, and also in the array of products on store shelves. Voters want everyone to roll up their sleeves together and find ways to accelerate in this direction, to make the “creative tension” between ENGO’s and businesses less tense and more creative.
And so, one way to analyze this week's Greenpeace event is to see it as a massive billboard signalling that the best-known ENGO brand in the world remains more comfortable on the fringes rather than immersed in partnerships to change markets and economies. Greenpeace says it is the “world’s most effective environmental activist group,” but maybe that claim is becoming more doubtful. Monday’s event certainly garnered a lot of media coverage, but did it make people more concerned about the environment, or more convinced that Greenpeace was stuck in the past?
A number of other ENGOs have adopted a more collaborative approach, and this episode obscures that reality, but it may be only a matter of time before collaboration replaces conflict as the new normal. These days, wall-scaling stunts may still grab attention, but most people have moved beyond simply wanting more profile for the environment, and want to know what we can all do to make it better, in very practical terms.
(Photo: Police make an arrest after the Greenpeace protest on Parliament Hill. Fred Chartrand/The Canadian Press)
Bruce Anderson Contributors
Bruce Anderson
Bruce Anderson has been a leading researcher and communications advisor for more than two decades. He started working on Parliament Hill in1979 and moved to the private sector in 1983. He was a founding partner of the Earnscliffe Strategy Group and has done two stints with Decima Research, including as CEO from 2004 to 2008. He has worked on national campaigns and advised politicians in both the Progressive Conservative and Liberal parties. During the 2008 federal election, he authored the Harris Decima nightly poll for The Canadian Press. He is presently pro-politics but non-partisan.
Today, Anderson serves a range of public and corporate clients on subjects including financial services, telecommunications, energy, trade, homebuilding and the environment. He provides research-informed advice on branding, marketing, reputation and issues management and is simultaneously senior associate with Harris Decima and senior vice-president with National Public Relations.