Here's why a Tory majority is in the cards

I have a column in this week's Ottawa Hill Times, in predicting a Conservative majority victory, if an election is held this spring.

It's reproduced below:

2011 to  mark true beginning of Harper Dynasty
At the beginning of the year I boldly predicted in the National Post that the federal Conservatives would trigger an election this spring.

Nothing has happened since then to cause me to change my mind. Indeed, if anything every day brings fresh evidence that a federal election is near.

This has emboldened me to climb a little further out onto my forecasting limb.

After much pondering, I have come to the conclusion that if we do have a federal election this spring, the result will be a Conservative majority.

Now I realize this forecast goes against conventional political wisdom.

Many pundits, using current public opinion polls as evidence, are arguing no party currently has enough voter support to win a majority.

Columnist Lorne Gunter has written, “Party standings would probably end the campaign at more or less their current levels. There is almost certainly no majority available to any party.”

And former Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella has declared, “Harper is still far from a majority.”

Really?

Gunter and Kinsella are forgetting one simple fact: Canadians are not yet politically engaged.

The Liberals recently released a poll, for instance, which showed only 15 percent of Canadians are even paying attention to federal politics. (By the way, that’s completely normal.

The average person rarely cares about the goings on in Ottawa. They would rather watch American Idol than The National. And who can blame them?)

But once an election is actually called Canadians will get focused on politics. They will start paying attention.

And what will these focused Canadians see when they start paying attention?

Well for one thing they will see a Prime Minister in Stephen Harper who is at the peak of his political powers.

A battle-hardened veteran of three national election campaigns and two leadership races,

Harper is a wily political tactician who leads a united, well-disciplined and wealthy party.

The Liberals, on the other hand, are in a sorry state.

Their leader, Michael Ignatieff, is intelligent but a rookie when it comes to running a national campaign. He has only one national race under his belt, a Liberal leadership contest, which he lost.

Nor has he shown any evidence that he is a good campaigner or that he possesses good political instincts or that he can come up with a message that will resonate with Canadians.

His party is also demoralized and cash-poor.

In short, in the next election Ignatieff will have a hard enough time rallying his own

Liberal base, let alone winning over undecided voters.

In other words, on paper at least, the Harper vs Ignatieff contest could be the biggest mismatch since General Custer took on Sitting Bull.

And let’s not forget the Conservatives only need a net gain of 12 seats to win a majority.

That’s absolutely doable.

All things considered, the Conservatives should gain seats in Danny Williams-less Newfoundand and will very likely win back the one seat they lost in Alberta in 2008.

But I’m guessing it’s in “voter-rich” Ontario where the Conservatives will really make their majority-guaranteeing electoral breakthrough.

Political conditions in that province are just right for major Tory gains.

Last year’s emotion-laden debate over the gun registry, for instance, should help the Conservatives immensely when it comes to taking some Opposition-held Ontario rural ridings.

And even Ontario’s urban ridings are ripe for the Tory taking.

Consider how the Conservatives handily won the recent by-election in Vaughn.

Plus the victory of conservative Rob Ford in the Toronto Mayor race shows even the up until now Tory-resistant GTA might be ready to turn blue.

Helping the Conservatives is that Ontarians are growing tired of Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty and thus will be in the mood to vote against any Liberal, provincially or federally.

For all these reasons a Conservative majority seems to be in the cards.

Mind you, the preceding analysis assumes the Tories will run a good, tactically sound campaign, and I concede that’s a mighty big assumption.

Never underestimate the ability of Conservatives to mess things up.

However, all things being equal, we should expect 2011 to mark the true beginning of the Harper dynasty.

How will Prime Minister Harper govern after he wins a majority?

That’s something even I can’t predict.

Media Alert

I am scheduled to be a guest on the Charles Adler Show today at 2:00 PM ET to discuss the curious case of Maxime Bernier.

Me on TV

In case you missed my appearance on Power Play this afternoon, you can catch it online here.

Topic: Maxime Bernier hero or villain?

War room run amok!

Check out my column which appears in today's Toronto Star, in which I dissect the recent Tory attack ads.

Media Alert

I am scheduled to do two interviews on the question of Maxime Bernier and Bill 101.

At around 5:00 PM ET, I will be on CTV's Power Play; then at 6:10 ET I will be on CFAX radio's Adam Stirling Show.

Why Harper should back Bernier

Quebec’s draconian anti-English language laws should embarrass every right-thinking Canadian.

Not only are they patently ridiculous – “language police” and their measuring the size of letters – but they clearly infringe on freedom of expression.

Simply put, in a truly free and democratic society, every individual should have the right to post signs in whatever language he or she chooses.

Yet, shamefully, Canada’s politicians, media and cultural elites all look the other way when it comes to the Quebec government's assault on language freedom.

Everyone it seems would rather pander to Quebec’s nationalistic sentiment, than stand up for what’s right.

One exception, however, is Conservative MP Maxime Bernier.

Bernier recently had the courage to say the obvious. Speaking on a radio program he said Quebec doesn’t need legislation to protect its language.

Later he elaborated on his blog:

“Yes, it’s important that Quebec remain a predominantly French-language society," wrote Bernier. "And ideally, everyone in Quebec should be able to speak French. But we should not try to reach this goal by restricting people’s rights and freedom of choice.

"French will survive if Quebecers cherish it and want to preserve it; it will flourish if Quebec becomes a freer, more dynamic and prosperous society; it will thrive if we make it an attractive language that newcomers want to learn and use. Not by imposing it and by preventing people from making their own decisions in matters that concern their personal lives.”

Seems like a reasonable and principled position.

Yet, Bernier's comments have caused an uproar both in and out of Quebec.

Quebec politicians – from both the Liberal and Parti Quebecois – have basically labeled him a traitor, which says more about their shaky understanding of freedom than it does about Bernier.

Even worse, however, is the appalling reaction to Bernier’s comments from the federal Opposition parties.

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff wants Prime Minister Stephen Harper to come out and denounce Bernier.

According to an Ignatieff spokesman, “Distancing isn’t good enough. Mr. Harper needs to be clear in denouncing Bernier’s comments. Or is this the real Conservative position being floated out the back door by a convenient spokesperson?”

Meanwhile, the socialist NDP has a similar view.

NDP MP, Thomas Mulcair, declared, “By musing about getting rid of these protections, Mr. Bernier is playing with fire in an effort to increase his own popularity with the hard right wing of his own party and it's a shame. For over 30 years a large degree of language peace has been achieved by a law that gives the right to receive consumer information in French, the right to work in French and the ability to ensure that immigrants who choose to come to Quebec will learn French first and foremost.”

Note, neither the Liberals nor the NDP seem to care about the rights of Quebec’s English-speakers. They seem to be OK with the idea of using state power to coerce people into learning a language or with charging people with a crime for simply using one of Canada’s official languages.

Oh and by the way, Quebec’s language laws also discriminate against French-speaking Quebeckers, making it harder for them to learn English.

Yet, the Liberals and NDP would still sacrifice a fundamental individual freedom for “language peace.” If this wasn’t so serious, it would be laughable.

I hope the Conservative government under Prime Minister Harper has the courage to back up Bernier on this matter.

Certainly, I know Stephen Harper agrees with Bernier.

Indeed, while he was president of the National Citizens Coalition, Harper helped to finance court challenges to Quebec’s language laws, including a case that involved the owners of an antique store who were charged with a crime because the French and English lettering on their business sign were the same size!!

I guess Ignatieff and Muclair would see this as a heinous crime.

Of course, it would probably be expecting too much for the Conservatives to steadfastly back Bernier  on something so controversial.

But I hope, they at least allow him to continue being a strong voice for freedom.

We need all the voices we can get.

Happy Birthday Ronnie

Here's a column I wrote which appears in today's Calgary Herald.

******

Ronald Reagan's real achievement

Today marks the 100th anniversary of former American president Ronald Reagan's birth.

It's a time to remember Reagan and to celebrate his legacy.
And what a legacy.

Reagan helped turn a sour U.S. economy around, he helped win the Cold War, he assembled a winning political coalition, he restored American pride.

Many, in fact, consider him to be one of America's greatest all time presidents. (At least, conservatives view him that way.)

For me however, "The Gipper's" real success was not his economic policies or his foreign policy achievements.

For me it was how Reagan rebranded conservatism.

What do I mean?

Well before Reagan, conservatives were basically a dour lot.

And why not, everywhere they looked conservatism was losing ground.

Roosevelt's "New Deal" of the 1930s had ushered in the American welfare state, communism was on the march, taking over country after country, right-wing Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater got crushed in the 1964 election, the '60s Cultural Revolution was seemingly undermining America's morality and strength.

For conservatives, it was obvious -- the unstoppable trend toward "liberalism", was causing a slow, steady and inevitable American decline.

Hope was lost.

How could the U.S., with its "Age of Aquarius" generation ever hope to compete with the disciplined Soviets?

Pessimism reigned supreme.

Conservative thinkers were turning out books with uplifting titles like Suicide of the West.

Even those defying American liberalism did so defensively -- famed intellectual William F. Buckley, for instance, launched the conservative National Review saying the magazine would stand "athwart history, yelling stop."

Hardly a rallying cry.

By the 1970s things were only getting worse: the Watergate scandal, the military loss in Vietnam, Jimmy Carter spreading his own malaise in the White House.

Then at what seemed conservatism's darkest hour, came Reagan.

Reagan, the former Hollywood actor, the former Democrat, did things that were unusual for conservatives in those days.

He actually smiled! He used humour! He reached to Americans with a conservative message that was positive.

Rather than bemoaning America's "decline", Reagan made the case that America was still great.
America, he said, just had to remember that its greatness rested on freedom, including economic freedom.

If government was made smaller and less intrusive, he argued, it would free up the individual to create prosperity and growth. Government, in other words, wasn't part of the solution, it was part of the problem.

As Reagan himself put it, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Suddenly, thanks to Reagan, conservatism went from being a philosophy for Captain Killjoys to a force for optimism.

Reagan's brand of conservatism didn't look back, it looked forward; it promised better things and a brighter future.

Not surprisingly, it was an outlook that resonated with the American people.

Not only did it propel Reagan to the White House, but it changed the dynamics of the American political scene.

Reagan put liberalism on the defensive.

But more importantly, his message inspired not only his American countrymen, but conservatives around the globe.

That's a lesson today's conservative leaders should remember.

© Calgary Herald 2011

A true conservative speaks

Former US president Ronald Reagan was born 100 years ago. So I am posting one of his most famous speeches, just in case you want to know what a real conservative leader sounds like.

The Decline and Fall of the Liberal Empire

Just got done reading a book about the fall of the Roman Empire and watching an old movie called The Fall of the Roman Empire.

So naturally that got me to thinking about the fall of Canada’s Political Empire, AKA the Liberal Party of Canada.

Like Rome, the Liberal Party once seemed invincible and all powerful, but again like Rome it had inherent hidden weaknesses that inevitably led to decline and fall.

So why is the Liberal Party in decline?

Well after exhaustive research that took about 25 seconds, I have come up with 10 reasons the Liberals are in trouble.

Here they are:

1. They Keep Picking Bad Leaders
   Why do the Liberals keep picking stiffs? And I am talking about all the way back to John Turner. Remember him? Hard to imagine a leader more stiff and awkward than Turner. Even Jean Chretien – essentially just a small town politician --was no great shakes. Yes, I know he won three majorities in a row, but he benefited from the disastrous inability of the Opposition to mount any kind of effective challenge. Even then Chretien’s success resulted from basically winning every seat in Ontario. Outside Ontario the Liberals were weak and Chretien did nothing to improve that situation. Since Chretien, of course, things have only gotten progressively worse. Paul Martin, whom the media had acclaimed as Canada’s next Liberal Caesar, was a bust. Weak and inarticulate when speaking off the cuff, Martin seemingly had no other goal than simply being Prime Minister. After that, he had nothing. His successor, Stephan Dion was quite possibly the worst Liberal leader of all time. Enough said. And now there’s Michael Ignatieff, a charisma-free academic with all the political instincts of a seasick turtle. And the fact that the Liberals acclaimed Ingatieff as their leader speaks volumes.
   
   
2. Bad Issues
   One of my theories of politics is you shouldn’t talk too much about specific issues. As soon as a party takes a specific stand, it immediately drives away support. The Liberals don’t seem to get this. They keep coming up with some dopey idea guaranteed to hurt them in the polls. Remember the National Day Care Plan? Or worse, Dion’s infamous “Green Tax.”  Sure these ideas sounded great when they bounced them off Liberal donors at the wine and cheese parties in Toronto, but in the real world they just fall flat.
   
   
3. Changes in Quebec
   Once upon a time the Liberals won elections basically because they won a ton of seats in Quebec. That’s because for a long time the Liberals were really the only option. Tories were about as rare in Quebec as Hollywood celebrities at a Ricky Gervais fan club meeting. But after the Adscam scandal Conservatives started making inroads in Quebec. Even more damaging for the Liberals, however, was the emergence of the Bloc Quebecois. Suddenly the Liberals faced opponents on two-fronts and they have never been the same since
   
   
4. Changes in Quebec 2
   The problem the Liberals face in Quebec is not just tactical, it’s also ideological. Simply put, the old Liberal notion of centralizing power in Ottawa – popular in Ontario – just doesn’t sell anymore in Quebec. For Quebeckers the political rallying cry is now “Quebec first, Canada second.”  The Tories with their “decentralizing bent” can co-exist with that mentality and the Bloc, of course, embodies it. For the Liberals, on the other hand it’s a dead end.
   
   
5. The City Syndrome
   The Liberals are most comfortable in big urban areas – Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver. But take them out of that environment and they become more uncomfortable than Don Cherry at a poetry-reading seminar. They just can’t relate to rural Canadians, whom they equate with bible-thumping, gun-toting, redneck barbarians. The Liberal strategy, I guess, is to hope the CBC can bring some semblance of "civilization" to these hinterlands.
   
   
6. Money
   Money is the lifeblood of politics, and the Liberals desperately need a transfusion. New political donation laws which limit what donors can contribute to political parties has severely crippled the Liberal ability to raise money. Before these limits were imposed the Liberal Party relied on donations from wealthy corporations, which gave the Liberals the ability to denounce wealthy corporations. Now they are forced to rely more on grassroots support. That's hardly a Liberal strength. If you ask a Liberal about the grassroots and he will probably refer you to his landscaper. Oh and when the public political subsidy is scrapped the Liberals might be raising money at garage sales. Anybody want to buy Pierre Trudeau’s panama hat?
    
7. Out of Power, Out of Luck
   The Liberals were never big on ideology, unless you count grasping for power at all costs as an ideology. They did what it took to win power. If that meant channeling Hugo Chavez and socialism, that was fine. And it that meant running to the right of the Reform Party, well that was OK too. Whatever worked. The problem is that approach attracted “Power People”. These were people who would be loyal to the Liberals so long as their were perks to be awarded or advertising contracts to clutch. When the Liberals lost power, they lost a lot of their friends.
   
   
8. A new Sheriff in Town
   The Romans faced off against Germanic Barbarians and Huns. The Liberals have a bigger problem. They must face Stephen Harper. In all their history, the Liberals have never had to face an opponent like Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He is intelligent, ruthless and calculating. And right now Harper is using all his power and all his skills to exploit to the fullest every Liberal weakness.  He wants the Liberals to fall down and not get up.
   
   
9. The Future is Dim
   One characteristic of the Liberal dynasty in its heyday was its bench strength. You could always look at the Liberal party and identify three or four high caliber individuals who you could picture being Prime Minister. Not anymore. Who among the current batch of Liberals is Prime Minister material? Bob – “I nearly ruined Ontario’s economy” --Rae? Mark Holland, otherwise known as Mark Who? And, of course, there’s Justin Trudeau. Trudeau, of course, has the magic name. Too bad he can’t use that magic to make his kooky ideas disappear.
   
   
10. Disappearing Brand Loyalty
    At one time Liberal loyalists were born not made. If you were a Catholic you voted Liberal. If you were an immigrant or the child of immigrants you voted Liberal. If you were French-Canadian or Italian or Jewish you voted Liberal. But those days are changing. Voters are getting savvier, more sophisticated and choosier about their options. In other words, the Liberals now have to work for their votes. And for the Liberals that’s a new experience. 
    ******************************
     So there you have my Edward Gibbon-style analysis of the Liberal downfall. Of course,unlike the Romans, the Liberals might turn things around. But let's face it, that doesn't seemly likely. More likely is that one day all that will be left of the once mighty Liberals are political ruins.

Defending the undefendable

Here's a letter to the editor I sent to the Toronto Star in response to a recent James Travers column which defended public subsidies for political parties.

Dear Sir/Madam:

James Travers has conjured up a stunningly bizarre argument to defend taxpayer subsidies for politicians. (“Harper risks national unity in bid to end political subsidies” January 29)

He maintains the millions of tax dollars poured into the wallets of the Bloc Quebecois actually safeguards national unity.

Or as he puts it, “There is no bigger bargain than channeling rogue and destructive forces into legitimate and constructive political practices.”

In other words, unless Canadians pay off Gilles Duceppe and his crew, the Quebec population might rise up in violent rebellion.

Wow and people accuse the Conservative Party of fear-mongering.

Traver’s argument is, of course, absurd.

If the Bloc is cut off from the public dole it can always ask for voluntary donations to make up the shortfall.

And that’s as it should be.

After all, when you force Canadians to subsidize a party they don’t support it infringes on their freedom of expression.

That's why it’s time to end welfare for politicians.

Taxing polls

QMI Media recently ran an article about a poll it commissioned which showed Canadians not only opposed the federal government's proposed corporate tax cut, but that they actually wanted to hit corporations with higher taxes.

Here's my response in a letter to the editor, which ran in today's paper:

Dear Sir/Madam:

Re “Poll: Tax breaks for rich tough sell” (Jan. 31): The news that a large number Canadians would support hiking corporate taxes is hardly surprising.

When given an option, people will always favour “somebody else” paying more in taxes. In fact, I suspect polls would also show Canadians would like “somebody else” to do a lot of things.

 “Somebody else” should do more to protect the environment; “somebody else” should bear the brunt of any government spending cuts; “somebody else” should pay for social programs.

 It’s just human nature.

That’s why a better poll question would be, “Would you support corporate tax cuts if they created more jobs and a more competitive Canadian economy?”

Maybe you could get such a poll paid for by “somebody else.”

Elections Canada should mind its own business

Elections Canada bureaucrats are going to spend between $100,000 and $250,000 to figure out why so many young people are not bothering to vote.

Great, another massive waste of tax dollars, from the folks who brought you election gag laws.

First off, why do these bureaucrats even care about the voting habits of Canadians?

Seems to me, the people at Elections Canada should solely concern themselves with the nuts and bolts of doing their job - ie make sure there are enough ballots printed.

Whether or not people decide to vote is a personal matter and none of the government's business.

Besides I can guarantee you that after spending all that money, Elections Canada will decide that it should spend yet even more taxpayer money on some lame-brained media campaign urging young people to vote.

It will likely feature some unknown Canadian rap singer saying something like: "Hey kids, voting is cool!"

And it won't work.

The fact is young people are politically apathetic for a very good reason: they don't like the political choices being offered.

No amount of Elections Canada hectoring is going to change that.

Young people will only vote in greater numbers if politicians inspire them to vote.

Politics vs principle

The Conservative government faces a lose-lose scenario when it comes to the issue of funding a hockey arena in Quebec City.

If the Tories fork over tax dollars to the arena it will outrage their base; not only is it using taxpayer dollars to subsidize a private company, but worse it pandering to Quebec nationalists.

For a lot of conservatives that's the worst sort of subsidy.

On the other hand, if the Conservatives fail to dole out the dollars, it will give ammunition to the Bloc Quebecois in the next federal election.

So what to do?

Do you stand up for your base or cater to special interests?

It's a question of principle vs politics.

Well, given this government's general failure to stand up for principle, I strongly suspect the arena will get its money.

After all, even if conservatives howl with rage, where else are they going to go?

That's what happens when a party takes its base for granted.

Not so shocking a statistic

 Liberal pollster recently revealed some shocking news. 

Only 15 percent of Canadians, he says are paying attention to Canadian politics!! 

Actually that’s not so shocking. 

In fact, it’s pretty normal. 

Aside from political junkies and partisans, very few people care about or follow politics or the issues. 

The reality is Canadians, by and large, would rather watch American Idol than The National. 

That’s why all these opinion polls about which party is ahead, should be taken with a massive grain of salt. 

People just aren’t politically engaged. 

Now, of course, this will change. 

Once an election is underway, Canadians will become more focused. 

But even then the vast majority of the population will only start seriously considering the issues in the last few weeks or even the last few days of the campaign. 

Such a state of affairs might disappoint a political science professor or a Liberal pollster, but it’s just the way things are.

Media Alert

I will be doing a radio interview on CFAX radio at 1:35 PM.

Topic: Political ads.

Latest Tory ad a disgrace

Here's the latest Tory ad, which suggests to me the people who come up with these ideas are aggressive but not strategic.



What is the strategy behind this ad?

Of course, it's meant to ridicule the Liberal leader and I suppose to conjure up images of Howard Dean.

And I am sure hard-core Tory partisans will think that's wonderful.

But the purpose of a "negative" ad is to get non-partisans to turn against your opponent. Often such ads are based on hours and hours of polling research --- finding just that right weakness to expose.

This Tory ad looks like it was dreamed up in about five seconds, by a bunch of drunken frat boys.

It doesn't work on any level.

First off, few Canadians if any will make the Howard Dean connection. Secondly, and more importantly, any fair-minded, non-partisan individual viewing this ad will see it as nothing more than a clumsy hatchet job.

The end result could be to hurt the Tories more than the Liberals. Running attack ads is always risky and ads that clearly go over the line usually backfire. --- See Tory attack ad mocking Jean Chretien's facial features.

If I were the Liberals I would play a little political jiu-jitsu and turn this ad against the Tories.

"See how the Prime Minister is debasing political debate in this country with outrageous and appalling personal attacks? Haven't you had enough!"

Then there is the ethical factor. Michael Ignatieff never said "Yes" to an "unnecessary election." Yet the Tories are implying he did through a cheap editing trick.

Anybody could do that.

Here's how the Liberals could counter the Tory spot:

Announcer: Does Stephen Harper really want to close down orphanages and dump toxic waste into our lakes?

Clip of Stephen Harper: "Yes I do." (Never mind that Harper was actually answering the question, "Do you love kittens?")

In short, somebody needs to put a leash on whoever is writing these ads. Negative ads are like nitro glycerin, they can be powerful but should be handled with care.  Score: 0 out of ten.

Power play

In case you missed it, here's my appearance on CTV's Power Play. 

Media Alert

I am scheduled to be a guest this afternoon on CTV's  Power Play.

Also I am quoted in this Ottawa Hill Times story on public subsidies (welfare) for politicians.

Alberta politics getting interesting

Now that Premier Ed Stelmach has fallen on his political sword, the dynamics have completely changed in Alberta.

If the Tories, as I suspect they will, choose a more genuinely small "c" conservative to lead their party it means the next Alberta election will pit two pro-free market parties against each other.

Just imagine: two parties competing to see who will cut taxes the most, who will make government smaller, who will do the most to protect individual freedoms.

Now that's my kind of election!

And if that does happen it will be because the Wildrose Alliance Party stood up for conservative principles.

In doing so it changed the focus of debate in Alberta.

Talking like a conservative

"Individual liberty requires limited government."


Congressman Paul Ryan uttered those words last night during his response to the President's State of the Union Address.


His whole speech, with its emphasis on smaller government, individual freedom and free markets reflected the views of a man who actually believed in conservatism.


What a refreshing change from the juvenile partisan hackery that passes for political debate in this country.


Of course, Prime Minister Harper used to sound like Ryan.


I sure wish he would talk like that again.

NCC creeps into gutter

At one time the National Citizens Coalition was about attacking big government, now it seems more interested in attacking me.

Recently an NCC operative posted comments about me that can only be described as malicious, personal slurs.

Appalling.

I knew the people operating the NCC were incompetent, but I never imagined they would stoop so low.

They should be ashamed.

Media Alert

Two schedule media appearances today.

First at 7:30 AM ET (!!!!)I am scheduled to be on The Current -- CBC Radio, to discuss Prime Minister Stephen Harper and conservatism. (Cue: slanderous personal slurs)

Second at 5:30 PM ET I will be on CHCH TV's Square Off  where I will be debating the question of capital punishment and politics. (Don't worry I will be defending the Tories in this one.)

Harper Redux

To mark Prime Minister Stephen Harper's five years in office, I thought I would reprint a column he wrote 10 years ago in the National Citizens Coalition newsletter. (Italics are mine)

Tips for the Canadian Alliance

By Stephen Harper

Every major success enjoyed by conservatives in national politics in the past decade has resulted from the timely and unapologetic advancement of conservative ideals.

These ideals catalyzed the Reform party and gave the Canadian Alliance its initial momentum. Conservatives looking for a way forward should get their bearings by taking a look back.

Reform was the first national party to oppose the Meech Lake accord, especially the distinct society clause. It made an ever bigger impression on the public mind by helping to win the 1992 referendum battle against the Charlottetown Accord. The opposition to both accords was essentially grounded on the conservative principle of the equality of all citizens before the law – an ideal that gathered wide support in the referendum battle.

The next landmark was Reform’s Zero in Three Plan for eliminating the federal deficit in three years through spending cuts. Zero in Three became the crucial factor in the 1993 election that enabled the party to win 52 seats in the House of Commons.

This time, the conservative ideal of smaller government provided the foundation, a foundation initially derided by all the other parties but soon adopted by the Liberals as their own policy.

In 1995, Reform put out a new fiscal blueprint – the Taxpayer’s Budget advocating $25-billion in spending reductions and the elimination of the federal role in health and education through the transfer of tax points to the provinces.

Here was another conservative principle – decentralization. The success of Reform's down-sizing and decentralizing proposals came when Finance Minister Paul Martin borrowed heavily from Reform’s proposed spending reductions in early 1995. That same budget also combined federal transfers into an annual lump sum, reducing Ottawa’s control over provincial social programs.

Reform then shifted emphasis when it published its “20/20” paper after the Quebec referendum plan of October, 1995. That document merged Plan A – decentralization of powers not only to Quebec but all provinces – with Plan B – Canada’s pledge to defend its national interest against separatist threats.

Plan B was grounded in the conservative ideal of the rule of law, which the Liberals borrowed when they introduced the Clarity Act --- once again demonstrating how influential an opposition party can be against a rudderless government.

In 1998, the leadership of the party launched the United Alternative, shifting focus from policy to process. Internal strife grew and polling numbers fell as the party put its attention on how to win power rather than on what political power should be used for.

In the meantime, Alberta Treasurer Stockwell Day announced Alberta was moving to a single rate of provincial income tax. Positive reaction in conservative circles emboldened the United Alternative organizers to adopt the single-rate tax as the signature policy of the new Canadian Alliance.

Mr. Day’s bold tax-reform initiative also made possible his successful campaign for leadership of the Alliance. And while the media paid little attention, his campaign was marked by numerous policy speeches detailing his commitment to tax cuts, smaller government, decentralization, traditional social institutions and criminal justice reform.

Preston Manning, in contrast, spoke relatively little about policy during the campaign, preferring to emphasize his claim that only he could lead the party to victory in a general election. Mr. Day won a resounding victory, and Alliance polling numbers broke through Reform’s glass ceiling of 20%.

The Liberals responded with cunning – stealing the tax-cut agenda and catching the process-weary Alliance off guard by calling an early election.

During the election campaign, the Alliance policy messages got confused. Nonetheless, the party received 25.5% of the popular vote,  much better than the 19% Reform got in 1993 and 1997, and Canada got significant tax cuts as a result of the pressure the Alliance put on the Liberals.

This survey suggests that if conservatives hope to find a way out of their muddle, they have to refocus on policy. Factional strife and endless talk about who can win, rather than advancing the ideals they would pursue if they did win, will do little but drive the party’s supporters away.

This is not just a recipe for perpetual opposition. Provincial conservatives have used conservative ideology to win power in Alberta (smaller government), Ontario (tax cuts and welfare reform) and British Columbia (democratic reforms, lower taxes and the equality of citizens). At the national level, fiscal issues and free trade provided part of the foundations for conservative majorities in the 1980s.

Canadians need, and deserve, more than just an alternative, more than just strategic alliances. They need an alternative grounded in conservative ideals such as smaller government, lower taxes the equality of citizens, and the rule of law.

For if all we want is the exercise of power, we might as well join the Liberals.

Harper wrote this in 2001. Of course, if he had discussed such shockingly, radical and idealistic conservative ideas in 2011, certain Blogging Tories would be organizing a lynch mob! 

(Belated) Media Alert

I was a guest on the CBC's Power and Politics show yesterday to talk about Prime Minister Harper and conservatism.

Here's the video link. (Forward to the 24:35 mark to avoid non-Gerry related material)

Making politics fun

In my Ottawa Citizen article on the Conservative Party attack ads I mention my favorite all-time billboard from my days at the National Citizens Coalition.Here's a picture:

I suppose in this day and age of computers and Youtube and Facebook, billboards are a little old fashioned. But I got to tell you, this ad, along with our other billboard ads, drummed up a lot of media coverage.

And they were fun!

Here's another we put up after Bob Rae's electoral demise in Ontario.

And lastly, here's one I created to needle Ralph Goodale, who at the time was guy in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Too bad the NCC doesn't do stuff anymore.

When attack ads don't work

Check out my column over at the Ottawa Citizen on the problem I have with some of the Tory attack ads.

Reviewing the Liberal ads

Predictably the Liberals are responding to the recent spate of Conservative negative ads with their own attack ads.

Oops, sorry, according to Liberal partisans the ads are not "attack" ads, but actually "contrast" ads because they focus on issues. (When I was working in the US we called our negative spots "comparative" ads.)

But euphemisms aside, how do these two new Liberal negative ads rate.

Here's my review:

First off, both ads have poor production values. Perhaps this an indication of the Liberal Party's financial weakness, or maybe it's just a Canadian thing. The Tory ads were no great shakes in that regard either.

On the positive side both Liberal spots have concise, tight and focussed messages. When you only have 30 seconds that's important. The visuals in both spots were not great, but OK.

Of the two ads I like this one better:



Obviously, this ad is playing the populist card, a ploy that will likely resonate with a certain audience. It's what I like to call the  "Us vs. Them" tactic. Harper stands for big corporations (Them), the Liberals stand for "Us". It's hokey, but it can work. And the ad has some emotional punch. Score: 7 out of 10.

This ad on the other hand, hits the wrong chord.



Again, tight script and cute visuals but strategically this is the wrong Liberal message. Going after the Tories on the jet fighter issue is playing to Prime Minister Harper's strength: defence and security. If I am Harper I am happy to fight the Liberals over the question of who is better able to defend Canada. For most Canadians the default answer to that question is the Conservatives. That's why the Liberals are better to stick to issues where they have the home field advantage: health care, the environment, social issues. Score: 6 out of 10.

Interestingly, both ads attack Harper from the Left. This suggests the real purpose of the ads is not to win over new voters, but to mobilize the Liberal base. And while the morale of their supporters is important, the Liberals will need more powerful ammunition and better issues if they hope to persuade Canadians that it's time to topple the Conservatives.

The politics of capital punishment

The Opposition parties in the federal Parliament are in an "uproar."

Why?

Well during a CBC interview, Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared his support for capital punishment in some circumstances but also said he has no plans to make it an issue in the next Parliament.

This  according to the Liberals and NDP is shocking evidence that Prime Minister Harper is waiting to spring some sort of reactionary, right-wing, fascist, "hidden agenda" upon the country.

No doubt, this idea will pop up in Liberal attack ads in the not so distant future.

But is what Harper said really all that scary or shocking?

Years ago, he and I actually talked about capital punishment during our NCC stint together. At the time he said he supported the idea of reviving capital punishment for certain murderers. Paul Bernardo was the guy he had in mind.

Seems to me that's a reasonable position many Canadians would support.

In fact, there are probably lots of Canadians who wouldn't mind bringing back the noose, and they come from across the political spectrum.

That's why from a purely political point of view, the Liberals shouldn't raise this issue. Capital punishment is a hot button issue with lots of emotional intensity and such intensity will drive voters to the polls -- voters who want criminals punished as savagely as possible.

Many a US Republican candidate has been elected on a pro-capital punishment stand.

That's not to say the Harper Conservatives will touch this issue. They don't  have to.

They are winning over the pro-capital punishment crowd in other ways, with their policies of hiring more cops, building more prisons and enacting new "tough on crime" bills.

The only thing the Tories want to execute is a winning political strategy. 

The conservative soul

I don't usually quote the Bible but for this letter to the editor, published in today's National Post, I just couldn't resist.

Dear Sir/Madam:

David Frum correctly points out the political achievements of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative party.

But we must not confuse success for the Conservative Party with success for the conservative movement. Conservatism, as a philosophy, preaches smaller government and fiscally responsible leadership. By that standard, Mr. Harper has failed. 

Since taking office, he has engaged in reckless, deficit-bloating spending sprees, while increasing the size and scope of big government.

Maybe that doesn’t matter for partisan Conservatives for whom power is more important than principle. But for those of us who were hoping for a true alternative to the Liberals, the Harper regime has been a huge disappointment.

As it says in the Bible, “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?”

Harper vs Nicholls

If you caught the Peter Mansbridge interview of Prime Minister Stephen Harper on The National last night, the highlight, at least for me, was this exchange:

Peter Mansbridge: Well, you know who Gerry Nicholls is because you worked him at the National Citizens' Coalition. This is what he wrote just the other day: "Stephen Harper has essentially thrown economic conservatives under the bus. During his term in office, he's engaged in spending sprees, chalked up enormous deficits, increased the size and scope of government, even embraced Trudeau-style economic nationalism."

PM Stephen Harper: Well, first of all, that's not only untrue, but is completely unrepresentative of economic conservatives, Peter. And people who see themselves on the centre-right, particularly on economic issues, are overwhelmingly - in fact, I bet a pollster would tell you they're 95 per cent, 100 per cent supportive of this government. Because they know that we're doing what is necessary in the economic circumstances while maintaining our long-term approach, which is to keep taxes down and make sure that future growth is in the private free enterprise sector. That's what this government is doing.

In fact I think the opposite is arguable. I thin k the realism here Peter is not against some abstract - you know, we're political realists, Conservatives. We don't compare ourselves to some abstract ideology. The real comparison is, what is being done in other countries? I think arguably we are running right now the freest, the most free enterprise government in the developed world. I think that's very arguable. We're one of the few countries reducing our taxes. Even with our deficits and debt we're at some of the lowest levels in the developed world in these areas. So, you know, one has to compare oneself to reality, not to some abstract.

Hmmm. Prime Minister Harper really believes 100 percent of economic conservatives support his fiscal policies?

That must be news to the Fraser Institute and to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and to writers like Andrew Coyne and Terence Corcoran, all of whom have been pretty vocal in their criticisms of his economic policies.

And just speaking of my own personal experience I have met many, many economic conservatives disappointed in the Harper government.

Plus what's all this talk about "abstract ideology"? Is that what conservatism has been reduced to in this government. Just some abstract notion. Hard to imagine Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher ever talking like that.

Heck,  it's impossible to imagine the Stephen Harper I used to know talking like that.

Maybe the problem for Harper is that he spends too much time accepting the sycophantic praise of his "Trained Seals" and not enough time listening to his conservative base.

Comparing two ads

To further elaborate on my previous post as to the problems with the Conservative Party's "positive" ad, let's compare it to the masterpiece the Tories are ripping off.

I am talking about Ronald Reagan's "It's Morning in America Again" TV spot.



As you can see the visuals in this ad reinforce the narration. More than that they invoke strong emotional reactions. I mean, you can't watch this TV spot and not feel hopeful and confident about America. That's why it worked. It was great television: emotional and visual.

Contrast that to the latest Tory TV ad, "Rising to the challenge".



This ad has a decent script, but it lacks good visuals or emotion. The visuals it does have are weak. It opens with street riots, then shifts to what looks like a stock market computer screen. What is that supposed to convey? Fear? To me it just confuses the message. Then the rest of the ad shows Prime Minister Harper in his office late at night working on crossword puzzles or something. Again, a flat, uninspiring image. This a great radio spot, but a weak TV commercial.

Reviewing the Conservative TV spots

More evidence that a federal election is near:the Conservatives are rolling our campaign-style TV ads.

How do they rate?

Well here's my review.



Not a bad ad. It's designed to appeal to the risk-averse nature of your typical voter with a simple argument: why rock the boat when things are working? And simple arguments are the best. The script is also quite good as it drives home a few key points. On the downside the visuals are weak. Why the shots of Prime Minister Harper working at his desk, signing papers and drinking coffee? If the Prime Minister were wildly popular -- ala Ronald Reagan -- this would make sense. But he isn't. Why not have shots of people happily working in factories, or some sort of visual that reinforces the message? Also this is the sort of ad you run when you are a clear front runner, it will keep the voting base you have, but it won't win new converts. If the Tories are to win a majority they will need to make a stronger case. Score: 6 out of 10.



Not surprisingly the Tories are going to make attacks on Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff the centerpiece of their election messaging strategy. And why not? He's too tempting a target to ignore. Hence this attack ad. And overall it's pretty good. I like the sinister music, the visuals work and most importantly the message manages to link the bland Ignatieff with the scary and radical agendas of the NDP and Bloc Quebecois. Using Ignatieff's own words in the ad also gives it punch. It could use a little better production values and the bit about Ignatieff "Coming back to Canada" is a little too subtle. Score: 8 out of 10.



In this ad the Tories go after the NDP. Now attacking the NDP is a good strategic move for the Conservatives, but this ad is taking the wrong direction. Why? Because the Conservatives need the NDP to get stronger so it can eat away at the Liberal support base. The way to do that is for the Conservatives to attack the NDP on ideological grounds. What I mean is if the Tories blast the NDP for being "left-wing pinkos" it will have the effect of rallying wavering left wing voters to the NDP camp. However, this ad attacks NDP leader Jack Layton for being "ambitious" and for trying to set up a "coalition." That's tactically the wrong message. It just won't do the trick. Score: 4 our of 10.



Here's an ad I hope never airs on TV. I found it offensive when the Liberals played to bigoted anti-American feelings to score political points and I find it just as offensive when the Tories use the same odious ploy. Besides strategically speaking this ad will not do the Tories any good. It will only appeal to NDP types and left-wing Liberals who will never vote Tory. Score: 2 out of 10.



OK this is the worst of the lot. Terrible. Composed entirely of Ingatieff statements clearly taken out of context, its designed to make him appear unpatriotic. This is so crass it's almost an attack ad parody. It's this sort of nonsense that gives negative ads a ... well a negative reputation. Score: 1 out of 10.

Media updates

I am quoted in this Toronto Star article with the great headline: Fear and Loathing in Ottawa.

Also Le Quebecois Libre reproduces a column I wrote lamenting Canada's political orphans, AKA economic conservatives.

Metaphor madness

Yesterday I jokingly warned that a column I wrote for the Globe and Mail, "may offend leftists as it contains metaphors, similes and military analogies."

Well it turns out it wasn't a joke.

Left leaning journalist Susan Riley did take offence.

In today's Ottawa Citizen, she writes:

"It isn't only for politicians, but for media commentators, partisan bloggers and the anonymous individuals who spew invective on so many online comment boards.

We might start by rethinking our metaphors. This week, for instance, right-leaning pundit Gerry Nicholls, a former colleague of Prime Minister Harper's at the National Citizens Coalition, warned that while Michael Ignatieff is "playing political chess, (Harper) is waging total war."

He continues: "To be blunt, Mr. Harper's ultimate strategic goal really isn't to win a majority -- it's to eradicate the Liberal party as a viable political force." He describes the prime minister as "a hungry predator circling a weakened prey."

Now I suppose Riley believes my words are dangerous, that they will lead Canadian citizens to wage total war and eradicate all Liberals. And who knows, maybe they will inspire Prime Minister Harper to eat Ignatieff!

Who knew I had such awesome power?

OK, so I suppose the next step will be to set up some sort of government agency that will regulate and control metaphors to ensure they don't pose a threat to society.

Under such a regime, my sentences would be mandated to read: "While Michael Ignatieff is playing political chess, (Harper) is playing Risk. To be blunt, Mr. Harper's strategic goal really isn't to win a majority -- it's to make the Liberals really sad. The Prime Minister is like a hungry person circling a cheeseburger."

Anyway just to be on the safe side let's all remember to keep our political rhetoric and writing bland and boring.

That shouldn't be too hard, for guidance just refer to Michael Ignatieff's speeches. 

Me on the Internet

If you missed my recent appearance on the Michael Coren Show, fear not, it's now online.

Media Alert II

I am scheduled to be a guest on the Arlene Bynon Show at 1:30 PM ET to discuss my Globe and Mail column.

Media Alert

I am scheduled to be a guest on the Tom Young Show today at 1:00 PM to discuss my column appearing on the Globe and Mail website.

The Prime Minister's political agenda explained

I have a column appearing in today's Globe and Mail website which explains Prime Minister Stephen Harper's real "hidden agenda" and why he wants an election this spring.

(Warning this column may offend leftists as it contains metaphors, similes and military analogies.)

Harper's Trained Seals

A couple of days ago, I noted how certain conservative voices in the media were suddenly pushing the issue of political subsides for politicians.

I speculated that perhaps this was evidence the Conservative government was going to use this issue to help trigger their own downfall and thus force a federal election.

Well here's more proof: Today the National Citizens Coalition, otherwise known as "Harper's Trained Seals" announced its going to start pushing for the elimination of the subsidy.

Interesting timing.

I suspect the orders for this NCC campaign came from the PMO.

Of course, it's an issue the NCC should be pushing; the problem is the people running the organization are simply incompetent when it comes to mounting an effective media campaign.

That's something the PMO should consider.

Update: It seems Prime Minister Harper is now sabre rattling on this issue. More signs of an early election?

Media Alert II

I will be a guest on the Michael  Coren Show, tonight at 6:00 PM

Topic: federal politics

Media Alert

I just taped a segment on the Murray Langdon Show (CFAX Radio Victoria) to talk about the possibility of a spring federal election. It is scheduled to air after 1:00 PM ET.

Federal election in the spring?

I have a column in today's National Post in which I make the case as to why the federal Conservatives will try and engineer an election this spring.

Now that's not to say an election will happen, but just that all things being equal, Prime Minister Stephen  Harper would probably prefer to go sooner rather than later.

Free speech and political contributions

The public subsidy federal political parties receive is suddenly a hot topic among conservative pundits and writers.

In the space of just a few weeks Lorne Gunter, Ezra Levant and Stephen Taylor have all come out with blogs or columns denouncing the practice of using taxpayer dollars to finance politicians.

Why the sudden interest in this issue?

Could it be the Conservatives, who have long opposed public subsidies, are spinning their friends in the media?  And if that's the case does it mean the Tories are seeking to win over public opinion because they plan to address this controversial issue in their next budget?

And that leads to further questions. After all, the last time the Conservatives targeted these subsidies it nearly triggered a constitutional crisis, not to mention an unholy alliance between the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc.

Could it be Prime Minister Stephen Harper is hoping the subsidy issue will force an election this spring?

OK before I go sink too deep into this sort of speculation, let's get back to the issue of political subsidies.

 I fully concur with Gunter, Levant and Taylor that such subsidies  are wrong, undemocratic and basically amount to welfare for politicians.

They should be scrapped and I hope the Tories will do so.

However, if the subsidies are scrapped, Prime Minister Harper should also scrap campaign finance limits, which make it illegal for individuals to contribute more than $1,000 per year to a political party or candidate.

It's a question of free speech.

Just as it's wrong to force a Canadian to subsidize a political party, it's equally wrong to deny a Canadian the right to use his or her own money to financially support a political party.

And if the subsidies are removed, political parties will need to rely all the more on the voluntary support of Canadians.

Pity Canada's political orphans

I have a column in today's Ottawa Citizen in which I lament the fate of Canada's economic conservatives.

Check it out.

Tories turning into nannies

Here's a letter I wrote which was published in today's Toronto Sun, it's my reaction to a government move to regulate cigarette packages:

Dear Sir/Madam:

In the latest example of nanny statism, the federal government will force tobacco companies to post new larger and more shocking ads on cigarette labels. 

No one in government seems concerned that such a move clearly infringes on the right to free expression. 

So what’s next? Will we soon see government-imposed warning labels on Big Mac containers, on beer bottles and on candy wrappers? 

What we really need is a warning label for politicians: “Voting for this political party could be hazardous to your freedoms.”

Media Alert

Starting off the New Year, with a guest radio appearance on the Weekend Morning News with Jill Bennett (CKNW) at 1:30 PM ET.
 
Topic: Canadian federal politics in 2010.