Welcome to the official opposition...

...and all the anonymous news reports that come with it:

NDP 'unease' surrounds Turmel's Bloc secrecy

There's a serious unease in the NDP over interim leader Nycole Turmel's memberships in two Quebec sovereigntist parties, a party staffer said Thursday.

The staffer, speaking anonymously to RDI's La période des questions, said it shows a lack of integrity that Turmel held memberships in the Bloc Québécois for four years — until weeks before she announced her NDP candidacy — and in provincial party Québec Solidaire until Tuesday.

RDI, CBC/Radio-Canada's French-language news channel, confirmed the staffer works for the NDP but agreed not to name him.

These leaks shouldn't be treated any more seriously than "senior Liberal insider" stories, but expect to see more of them now that the NDP have hit the big time - especially if the party finds itself in a leadership race.

Tour Gratuit

On Sunday, I lamented that this election campaign was still lacking a defining storyline. Given the polls today, it's safe to say we finally have it.

The NDP surge is one of those surprises that maybe shouldn't be too surprising. After all, there have been thousands of attack ads aired against Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper over the past year, and apart from a few cameo appearances in coalition commercials, no one has dared lay a finger on Layton. He's been able to get his message out unopposed - with Jack being more popular and a better politician than either Harper or Ignatieff, it shouldn't be surprising that voters have responded to it.

On top of this, the NDP are big enough to be taken seriously, but not a big enough threat for power to be taken too seriously. Yeah, their platform is full of holes, but they'll never be in a position to implement it, so all that really matters to voters is that Jack wants to give more money to seniors, hire more doctors, and cut the cost of home heating fuels. Let the Prime Minister worry about how to pay for it.

Given the sudden reality that the NDP are serious players in this election, it's only fair to start taking them seriously. There's now a real possibility the NDP will come out of this election with 60-80 seats, with close to half of them coming from Quebec. So what kind of "table de cuisine" issues will these NDP MPs be fighting for?

Well, for starters:

1. In the debates, Layton promised to open the constitution to create "winning conditions" for federalism in Quebec. It's unclear what this means...so maybe it's time someone asked him, eh?

2. We've had several stories about quasi-separatist NDP candidates in Quebec, and there has been some switching back-on-forth between the two camps. If the NDP start electing place holder candidates across Quebec, we can likely expect that a few of them might hold extreme views. Now might be the time to take a serious look at just what kind of NDP team Jack will be bringing to Ottawa - maybe Mario Dumont can offer advice on how this might turn out.

3. Jack Layton was against the Clarity Act in 2004 and for it in 2006. It would be good to know where his Quebec team stands on the issue today.

4. Jack Layton supports extending Bill 101 to federal jurisdictions.

5. The NDP have cozied up to fringe separatist groups in Quebec.

Now, some of this isn't any worse than what the other parties have done. After all, it wasn't all that long ago that the co-founder of the BQ was Paul Martin's Quebec lieutenant. And, despite some of the jabs above, I actually do think it's a good thing for Canada if the NDP can finally squash the temporary ad hoc rainbow coalition known as the Bloc Quebecois.

But it's only fair that voters in Quebec, and in the rest of Canada, know where the party stands before casting their vote for them. A little clarity from Jack would be appreciated.

Making Sense of the NDP Gains in Quebec

In my mind, Chantal Hebert is the finest political columnist in Quebec. But I have a hard time understanding how she put deux et deux together in her column today. Here's the underlying thesis:

That hope is not totally unfounded. Over Jack Layton’s tenure, the NDP has gained a lot of strength in Quebec — mostly at the expense of the Liberals and mostly to the benefit of the Bloc.

Now, that certainly doesn't sound like crazy talk, and it fits in with what Hebert has been saying over the past year about the benefits of a Liberal-NDP merger or non-aggression pact.

Where the argument falls down, is in the supporting evidence. Let me call as my first witness, the finest political columnist in Quebec, Chantal Hebert, to rebut her own point. From earlier in the same article:

Since the New Democrats wrestled [Outremont] from the Liberals in 2007, it has fallen off the BQ radar. That was a fortunate development for NDP deputy leader Thomas Mulcair. In 2008, the erosion of the Bloc vote in his favour ensured his re-election.

Yes, despite Hebert's belief that the Liberals and NDP are splitting the federalist vote, it appears the NDP's lone victory in Quebec came with a little help from their separatist friends. This is consistent with the first two "second choice" polls I found on a google search - both show the NDP as the clear cut second choice of Bloc voters.

Now, that's not completely inconsistent with Hebert's argument. It's possible Bloc voters like the NDP but NDP voters don't like the Bloc (or, at least, prefer the Liberals). But I'm not so sure that's the case. Those same polls show that 20-25% of NDP voters in Quebec list the Bloc as their second choice. And just yesterday, Gilles Duceppe announced the poaching of a second former NDP candidate.

Moreover, a look at the 2008 Canadian Election Study shows the following previous election (2006) vote breakdown of NDP supporters in Quebec last election:

NDP 35%
Lib 23%
BQ 18%
CPC 13%
Green 5%

Yes, there's no denying some of the NDP's Quebec gains have come at the expense of the Liberals. It's certainly possible a strong NDP in Quebec hurts the Liberals. That's definitely true in Outremont.

But I just can't accept that this is as simple as the federalist vote being split. The NDP are fishing in Bloc waters, and I have to imagine that at least concerns Duceppe. And the fluidity between NDP and Bloc support in Quebec has to make you wonder if a Liberal-NDP pact would do either party any good there.

As part of the NDP's always consistent climate change strategy

A new NDP commercial hits the airwaves. In it, Jack Layton complains that Stephen Harper gave a tax break to big polluters...then follows it up with a promise to cut taxes on pollution.

No Matter How You Slice It...

'tis the season for eternal optimism:

CALGARY - They haven't elected a Calgary MLA for two decades and only snared one per cent of the vote in a recent city byelection, but NDP Leader Brian Mason remains optimistic his party can make a breakthrough in the heart of Conservative country.

Mason believes the redrawing of electoral boundaries for an expected 2012 election -- as well as adding four seats to the legislature, including potentially a few in Calgary -- could be a boon to the NDP.

In the last election, the NDP cracked 10% of the vote in two Calgary ridings, picking up 13% in Calgary North Hill and 14% in Calgary Fort.

So, for any aspiring gerrymanderers out there, the challenge is to divide up the Calgary map so that the Dippers win a seat in Calgary.

Proposals Certain to go Nowhere Fast: An Ongoing Series

Michael Byers has an interesting proposal in today’s Toronto Star, getting a bit of attention. Here are the key points:

There is only one surefire way to prevent a Harper majority [ED NOTE: …other than, you know, the opposition parties getting their act together]. The Liberals and NDP should agree to not run candidates against each other in the next campaign.

In each riding, the party whose candidate fared worst in the last election would pull its current candidate out, or refrain from nominating one.

Importantly, what is proposed is not a coalition, but a one-time ceasefire between two opposition parties whose combined vote share last time was significantly higher (44.4 per cent versus 37.6 per cent) than the Conservatives.

The only post-election condition in the agreement should be an unqualified public commitment to holding a national referendum on proportional representation within the first year.

The ceasefire agreement, once struck, could be expanded to include the Green party, which has always sought proportional representation and would benefit substantially from it.

An arrangement could be made to rectify this lack of representation by giving all five second-place Greens a clear run in the next election, with May having that opportunity in her new riding – in return for the Green party withdrawing its candidates from every other race.

Let’s start with the junior partner in this not-a-coalition. According to Byers' plan, the Greens would raise the white flag in all but their 5 second place ridings (3 of which are in Alberta, so good luck!). This isn’t an awful deal for the Liberals and Dippers – in the last election, if you make the somewhat far-fetched assumption that all Green votes would have transferred to the second place candidate, that would take 20 seats away from the Tories.

The problem is, that would drop the Greens down below 2% of the national vote, erasing the 2 million dollars a year they now get in funding from voter subsidies. You think Green Party members would be down with that? Remember, these are the same people who wouldn’t vote Liberal when Dion put forward the boldest environmental program ever seen in Canada. These are the same people who think the NDP has “sold out”. Good luck telling them to get into bed with these two parties, close their eyes, and think of proportional representation.

So the Greens are out.

Now, why does this deal suck for the Liberals-NDP notalition?

1. Even if you assume a perfect transfer of the Liberal and NDP vote, the two parties would have been below the 155 seats needed to pass a PR referendum last election. And good luck convincing the Bloc to vote for a system that would halve their seats.

2. You’d never have a 1-for-1 vote transfer. It just doesn’t work that way. So both parties, by virtue of running in fewer ridings, would lose a lot of cash on per-vote subsidy funding.

3. There would be huge internal dissention in the ranks when 97 Liberal ridings and 211 NDP ridings are told they couldn’t run candidates. Good luck getting the members (and already nominated candidates) in those ridings to volunteer for the party, donate money, and renew their memberships. I haven’t noticed too many Olivia Chow posters at Trinity-Spadina meetings…I suspect some of the members there might be a tad annoyed at this deal.

And while I know the media shies away from printing stories about internal party feuds, even they may pen one or two columns on the topic.

4. Even if this deal wouldn’t be for a formal coalition, I tend to think most voters (and Tory ad writers) wouldn’t make this fine distinction.


Beyond all that, if the Liberals are going to be a national party and a government-in-waiting, they need to act like it and this would send all the wrong messages. For the NDP, only running in 100 ridings would seriously undermine their credibility. Maybe there would be some value in doing this in a half-dozen 3-way split ridings, but on a national scale it would be a complete disaster that, in the long run, would only serve to weaken the left-wing parties, strengthening the Tories par consequence.

The "New" NDP

It seems everyone has weighed in on the possibility of an NDP name change. I could wax on at length about the pros and cons of this but, the short of it is, it's a dumb idea and it won't happen.

Having gone to many a convention, you always get a motion or two that the media focus in on a lot more than the party members, and I suspect this is that sort of motion...I'd be surprised if it gets over 20% support in the actual vote. I know a name-change motion would be shot down in a second by Alberta Liberals - an organization that has a lot of good reasons to do something like this. So I can only assume the equally idealistic NDP would be just as quick to back away from this one, even if it made sense.

And I have a hard time seeing the benefits of dropping the "new". Consider:

1. A name change is a branding exercise and, as much as it pains me to say it, the NDP brand isn't in awful shape. They've gained seats in three straight elections, to the point where they're as successful now as they've ever been.

2. They have two provincial NDP governments who it helps them to be associated with - the only place where the NDP brand gets pulled down from its provincial wing is in Ontario (ironically enough, because of a Liberal).

3. A name change only really makes sense if the party is going under a major ideological change...and even though there's a good argument to be made for that, it doesn't sound like something the Dippers are considering. Otherwise, it's just a gimmick that won't do anything but confuse voters. It also makes for a nice hammer to hit the DP with - "a new name, but no new ideas" yada yada yada.

4. Latching their horse to the Democratic Party makes sense now, with Obama as popular as he is. But, considering how often Jack Layton has used "american" in the pejorative sense over the past few years, it's an odd donkey to hitch your wagon to.

5. Even if "new" doesn't make a lot of sense for a 50 year old party, this is a country that still has the somewhat oxymoronic "Progressive Conservative" Party...I think we can accept it. And, from a marketing perspective, "new" isn't a bad adjective to be associated with.

So, yeah, ain't gonna happen. For better or worse, the old NDP is here to stay.

NDP Fantasy

There's some internet speculation floating around about the NDP extracting a referendum on PR as the price for keeping Harper's government afloat.

Ain't gonna happen.

Not a chance.

No way.

As much as the NDP would love a PR referendum, they couldn't even get that deal out of Paul Martin when he was desperately trying to cling to power in 2005. So given the Liberals are maybe-kinda thinking about voting down Harper sometime in the fall, it's not like he has a gun to his head.

And it makes absolutely no sense for Harper to sign on. Since the rise of the CCF, first past the post has been exceedingly kind to the Conservatives. They won the only two Gore Elections (lose popular vote, but win), in 1957 and 1979. And with governing coalitions the norm in a PR system, it has to concern Conservatives that their popular vote exceeded the Liberal-NDP vote in just two elections over that time period.

Now, that's not to say they'd only be in government for 8 years out of every 60. You could argue that a Conservative-NDP coalition would have been the logical end result in 2006. Or maybe they could try to go at it solo in a minority or form a grand coalition every now and then. But if Conservatives hate the compromises they've had to make now, it seems odd that they'd give away any chance of ever forming a majority government and condemn themselves to perpetual deal-making with the socialists and tree huggers.

NDP supporter Robert McCelland does prescribe a motive for Harper:

Harper’s coalition of reformers and red tories is fracturing once again. Proportional representation would allow these two factions to separate and pursue their own agendas without losing a disproportionate number of seats like they would under the current first past the post system. The right half of the political spectrum would essentially then have the same dynamic as the left with the red tories battling the liberals in the centre while the reformers pulled to the right in the same way the new democrats now pull to the left. Without the reformer baggage the red tories would then have a far greater chance of pulling support over to them from the liberals.

And that is probably what would happen eventually in a PR system. But you need to ask yourself this: If Stephen Harper's legacy is that he was the man who united the Conservative movement in Canada, why, oh why, would he want to also be the man who oversees the destruction of that party? Especially when you consider the PC/Ref/CA vote never matched the Liberal vote in three previous attempts, never mind the Liberal/NDP vote.

Je Me Souviens?

If you want evidence of how quickly the media narrative can turn on you, look no further than Jack Layton. The man was praised far and wide for his historic Quebec breakthrough in Outremont last fall. It was only the second Quebec seat won in NDP history and was a sign that the party was on the road to great things.

But, that's so 2007. Bad showings in two low turnout meaningless Toronto by elections and suddenly the house that Jack built is beginning to crumble.

Partisan Jabs

I'm going to be a good little Liberal blogger today and take a few jabs at the NDP and CPC. If Gilles Duceppe does something stupid by the end of the day (a 50/50 proposition at worst), I'll update the post to include a shot or two at him.

First up, remember that investigation into Liberal Party polling practices headed up by former PQ Cabinet Minister Danielle Paille? Well, you probably don't because his conclusions have been sitting in report purgatory for a month, no doubt waiting for a quiet December 24th publication. Well, it seems the CPC have broken Paul Martin's spending record, with the PMO quadrupling its polling budget since '05-06. When asked about it in the house, James Moore said he was "surprised" to learn this.

Speaking of James Moore surprises, hot on the heels of scantilycladwomangate, the NDP have been forced into yet another apology, this time over accusations levelled during the last election:

NDP House leader Libby Davies formally apologized Thursday on behalf of her party for spreading allegations that a Liberal candidate in the last federal election tried to bribe his NDP rival to drop out of the race.

“The New Democratic Party admits we seriously erred in making the allegations public and in putting a young and inexperienced candidate in a position where he felt justified in making those allegations and to repeat them on some 40 occasions to media across Canada,” Ms. Davies told the Commons.

[...]

Ms. Davies admitted that the NDP erred in arranging for Hansen-Carlson to repeat his accusations widely in the media 10 days before the Jan. 26, 2006 election. And she said it made “another serious error in judgment” in failing to make public a letter from Canada's elections commissioner, three days before the election, which cleared the two Liberals.

You think? But, really, NDP errors in judgement aren't that surprising; they're as much a way of life as Liberal patronage or Conservatives complaining about Liberal patronage...

What's that?

OTTAWA — The Conservative government appointed a raft of Tories to federal boards, agencies and as citizenship judges yesterday.

At least seven of the 11 appointments yesterday to the National Film Board, Via Rail, the CDIC, two shipping agencies, and citizenship judgeships, went to people with Tory links. They include a former MP, a former Manitoba MLA who now works for a Conservative MP, a former Canadian Alliance candidate, and advisers to federal and provincial Tory ministers.

Stephen Harper practicing blatant patronage after railling against it for all those years? Man, he really must be using Mulroney as a mentor...

Numb3rs

The latest Census figures are out, and for those who enjoy looking at those sorts of things, the Globe does a good job of breaking it down.


Oh, and in a completely unrelated story, Pat Martin is predicting the death of the NDP:

Martin said his party must make significant gains in the federal election many observers predict will come this year or be forced to admit it may never be anything more than a fringe player and end its 46 year existence.

[...]

"We've been suffering from that for years because we don't want to be seen as radical extremists," he added. "So, the result has been to bore people into some kind of stupor, where nobody has any idea what we stand for anymore."

My favourite part of this article is that the Edmonton Journal features it right next to a picture of Jean Charest and some children with the title caption "puppets and politics". In honour of Pat Martin perhaps?

Puppets Who Kill

And people say nobody takes the NDP seriously...