CalgaryLiberal

Archive for January, 2010

“Cover Up”

“Present”

Dr. Flanagan, ex-Conservative campaign manager, has made the following comments to Don Martin of the National Post:

Before the fall fiasco [Harper] wasn’t exactly loved by the public, but he was widely respected by political observers as a competent manager and a shrewd strategist. But after his misadventure with the political subsidy issue, many are saying that his strategic sense has been over rated. This is a dangerous development for if you are not to be loved, you must at least be respected.

[This was Harper's] single-worst mistake, not just as prime minister but in his career as a party leader[.]

Taken together, along with other less publicized reversals, they have created a widespread impression that Harper stands for nothing in particular except winning and keeping power. This is a major loss for a political leader who was once seen as a man of conviction.

Martin summarizes his own reaction to this critique adeptly as “Well, Ouch.”

I have a lot of respect for Dr. Flanagan. He is both a teacher and a scholar of international renown, who has sadly been pushed to the sidelines of our national debates. With his support for his ex-student, Danielle Smith of the Wildrose, we can deduce his solidarity with his own ideology rather than being held to that of the current Conservatives in Ottawa… which means we can take his words at face value and that of a scholar–and not a pundit. No agenda seems to be served here other than ivory tower truth which, in my humble opinion, should be encouraged.

He has a lot of important things to say and, as many partisan bloggers and analysts are typing furiously about the kooky academic buried under a thousand pieces of paper who longs for political life again, he should be listened to. From my viewpoint as a political blogger there is a lot of bovine struccus in politics. As in, people don’t say what they mean and mean what they don’t say. To get a jolt from Flanagan is good for our national debate. Flanagan should be encouraged, along with other mute scholars.

The change might not have been recognized, though, by Canadians. I recall watching a CTV interview with Dr. Flanagan and a Liberal pundit a few weeks ago–the likely set up being that the reporter was looking for some hard hitting punditry and attacks by Flanagan against supposed tomfoolery in Ottawa. It never came. A painful five seconds of silence with an expectant reporter waiting for something juicy with nothing coming at the end–and they then they went to commercial after much awkwardness. (By the way, if anyone could find this clip I’d be much obliged.) I think the reporter was expecting some sort of reaction from him that’s juice up ratings and he delivered not ravings of political punditry but straight to the point analysis.

Which then drew that previously mentioned five seconds of awkward silence.

But back to Harper-bashing for a moment. Harper did push it too far with the attempt at removing public financing for parties while likely testing how far he could go. Just like he is pushing with prorogation then and now again today. He’s going to keep pushing, and pushing, and pushing, till other parties snap like a hammock under a hippo. It’s not strategy.

It’s a tactic. It’s a short term tool call brinkmanship and it forces other parties into compliance over the threat of reprisal–in this case the reprisal would be an election. Seeing the fortunes of both the NDP and Liberals were not as favourable in late 2008 it was obvious an election was out of the question–so those parties being pressured moved to the next option: a coalition. And he’s begun pressuring people again–through his new favourite tool of prorogation. He’s dodging the public’s outcry over the Afghan detainees and plenty, plenty more and plying a tactic of subversion of the public debate through tossing parliamentarians out onto their rump on Ottawa’s sidewalk.

Now… The question is when Harper continued to push and continue on through his constant pressuring–when will Liberals like me snap? When is the line too far? Or is Harper changing the line so that civil debate in Canadian political society is something entirely unrecognisable?

Anderson’s (with mention of Forsyth at the end)  media release.

Janice Harrington, VP External for Anderson’s riding, noted on her twitter account that Anderson was lying to the media about consulting his PC riding association:

If he does jump, he makes me a sure enemy and political foe. Our last conversation was entirely fiction and I will make sure all know it.

Nicholas Kohler has written on the cross over on Macleans.

I noted this possibility earlier in my examination of the Wildrose Alliance’s upswing in the polls.

[The WAP's polling numbers] will likely put the pressure on PC MLAs who, in my humble opinion, won their ridings when they won their riding’s nomination will likely find that public opinion turning favorably toward the WAP and unfavorably against the PCs will encourage their jumping ship to the newer party.

The problems surrounding the cross overs are threefold.

(1) The new ex-PC members and executives joining the WAP are going to find themselves in a schism with the WAP. As noted by Harrington–she was not consulted and nor were others. This is likely going to continue to cause turmoil for the WAP, seeing that Harrington’s views are likely held by a lot more than just a few in Anderson’s riding.

Considering that there’ll be a personelle and volunteer split between the WAP and the PCs in the riding, there’ll likely be quite a lot of tension come next election with a lot of new maneuverability for other parties to grab Anderson’s seat.

There is also the problem of ideology. The leaving PCs will likely carry with them their centre-right philosophy and progressive social policy (or whatever is left of it after the C-50 bill)  to a largely extreme-right wing party. This philosophical infusion will likely cause even more problems to arise for the fledgling WAP.

(2) The issue of the WAP being recognized as an official opposition party is not going to happen unless some serious finagling occurs with the Stelmach PCs. Ther reason why such recognition is important is because of the benefits that holding this status entails. The status of “recognized opposition party” helps a party in that it gives them additional funding, province-payed (ergo, tax-payer supported) employees for the party, and a turn at whacking the PCs during the daily question period.

All three are helpful to a young party. And, well, Stelmach likely wont give it.

The endowing of opposition status is controlled by the Premier’s office. Also, the Legislative Assembly Act states that:

Allowance to leader of recognized opposition party
42(1) In this section, “recognized opposition party” means a party that:
(a) is represented in the Assembly by at least 4 Members, and
(b) received at least 5% of the popular vote in the general election immediately preceding the year in which the allowance in subsection (2) is to be paid.

The WAP are sitting at three, not four, members (Hinman, Forsyth, and Anderson). They did pull in 6.77% last time. Subsection (2) of 42 that’s spoken up in 42(1)(b) is just a raise for the party leader in the legislature. This leaves them out of the loop.

There are issues with this strict adherence to granting the WAP opposition status, however. Klein granted the NDP opposition status when they were booted down from their seats to below the needed number. This was political, of course, since it would harm the Liberals in getting more seats/votes. It’s a political reason to deny the WAP so the reasoning to include the WAP as an opposition party is a tad bit flawed.

Dave over at daveberta also explores another precedent on denying the WAP of opposition status:

A precedent for denying the Wildrose Alliance official party status may have been set in 1984, when former Social Credit MLAs Walt Buck and Raymond Speaker formed the Representative Party of Alberta. Both MLAs were elected as Independents in the 1982 election and they were denied official opposition status in the Assembly (their party also did not exist in the previous election)

Of course there’s the counter argument that if Stelmach does deny the WAP opposition status there will be rhetoric from Smith on the need for democracy and openess in government. However, if we take a gander at how Harper has been running Ottawa lately and the lack of outcry over his yearly prorogation of government and what some might call an abuse of the rules to meet his own political ends… Stelmach, just like Harper, can and will get away with it.

So, as stated before, the WAP is likely not going to get their opposition party status any time soon.

(3) I was listening to the radio on the way to work today and I was able to listen to a radio broadcast of Smith/Anderson/Hinman talking about the crossing over of party lines. From what I gleaned from it while rushing up 16th ave (that road is amazing now, by the way–props to city hall) these three were almost certain they’d receive opposition status. Which is strange, considering the previous point’s argumentation.

Anderson was extraordinarily calm in his demeanor as he spoke about how he was pushed to the side and quashed by Stelmach’s caucas. While, of course, Anderson was included in that very same caucus and had been given access to quite a bit. He was inside the cabinet, for heavens sake. That’s the inner circle of the Premier. And to say he’s been shut out?

Something doesn’t add up here. Both the WAP’s assuredness in addition to their logical dissonance point to something odd either in Edmonton or in who is advising the WAP. I’ve dealt with WAP’s organizational deficiency before in a previous post. Something is definitely off in this crossing the floor by these two MLAs.