It’s Been One Week

The 2011 federal election campaign is barely a week old, and the big story is how badly (in the double sense) Stephen Harper has performed.

Harper kicked off the campaign by attacking his main rival, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, claiming Ignatieff would form a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc Québecois, even if the Conservatives won a plurality of seats. Ignatieff promptly disavowed any such intention, but Harper kept, um, harping, on the subject.

When confronted with the letter to the Governor-General that, along with Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe, he had signed in 2004, Harper denied that it was intended to propose a coalition as an alternative to the Paul Martin Liberal minority government. I referenced that letter in a previous post. You can read what Harper had to say on that occasion and be the judge of his intentions then and whether he's being truthful now.

This isn't the first time Harper has "reinterpreted" an earlier position. There was the essay in which he called Canada a "second-tier, socialistic country" back in 2000, and the infamous "firewall" letter of 2001. Understandably, he doesn't talk (openly) like that today, which is what fuels talk of his "secret" agenda.

So, OK, against Canada in 2000; in 2011, "Canadians first and only". In 2004, in favour of a coalition with "socialists and separatists"; in 2011, agin' 'em.

But Harper has set a new personal best for reversals, and lying about them, with this week's flip-flop on one-on-one debates: on Wednesday, he was issuing challenges; by Thursday, he was chickening out. Which led Maclean's blogger Scott Feschuk to dub the Conservative campaign plane "Chicken Wings". This one could stick around to haunt Harper: people can't always tell a liar, but they sure know a coward when they see one.

Harper's big campaign promise of the week landed with a giant thud. The offer to let select – only 13% would qualify, and only the richest would benefit – families income split to save on taxes had a couple of big ifs and whens attached: if and when he gets re-elected (twice), and if and when he eliminates the deficit. Voters can probably figure out for themselves whether the guy who managed to turn an inherited $14 billion surplus into a deficit of $55 billion is likely to ever balance the budget, especially after the corporations get their tax cut, and the jets and jails get paid for. Maybe Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, as a former Mike Harris operative, can explain to Harper the effect tax cuts have in creating permanent "structural" deficits.

Now it's revealed that Harper has alienated the media following him by restricting them to five questions a day: two in French, two in English, and one from a local reporter. And there'll be no questions about ethics allowed. That oughta keep the press conferences short.

It's still early in the campaign, of course, and voters may not yet be paying attention; or Harper and the Conservatives may yet find their feet; but it will be interesting to see what the polls reveal about the effect of the first week's gaffes.

Party Politics

This election driving you to drink? Yeah, me too.

I tried the Coalition Drinking Game the other night. Every time the word "coalition" was mentioned, I took a drink. The last thing I remember, Peter Mansbridge was talking about an airstrike in Libya.

Anyway, I don't think it's fair that the politicians should have all the fun, and burger polls are so 2008, so let's put the party into party politics with Political Cocktails 2011.

For you Conservatives, we have the Jets and Jails Julep. Start with 1½ ounces of Alberta rye whisky (what else). Add a dash of day-old Tim Hortons coffee, black, to give it that bitter edge. In keeping with Stephen Harper's personality, the drink should be neither shaken nor stirred, but served over lots of ice. Makes one minority strength drink. Or try it majority strength: adding 3 more ounces of rye turns it into a Harper Hangover. But, be warned: try it and you'll be sorry.

Or, there's a Liberal libation called the True Grit for those in the mushy middle. You say you're not sure what's in it? Doesn't matter; you can put whatever you like into this drink and change the ingredients to suit your mood and the occasion. Just be sure to use a muddler (you do have a muddler, don't you?), so everything gets thoroughly, well, muddled. Usually served on the rocks.

How about a You Don't Know Jack? Everyone says this one sounds great, but few people are willing to try it. Its fans prefer it straight up.

Available only in Québec, the Bloc Buster is one distinctly differently cocktail. In a tall glass combine 1 ounce pique, 1 ounce insouciance, and a dash of je ne sais crois. Gilles Duceppe finds this one great for washing away the taste of humiliation every time he demands another tanker load of money from the rest of the country.

Green Party supporters can try the May-be Someday. To an ounce of wheat grass juice, add 4 ounces of water from a melting glacier. But since it doesn't contain any alcohol, I don't know why you'd bother.

Our first prime minister, John A. MacDonald was a noted drinker. One evening, while on the campaign trail, an over-refreshed MacDonald threw up on the platform. Responding to his opponent's scornful accusation of drunkenness, MacDonald told the audience, "I get sick sometimes not because of drink or any other cause, except that I am forced to listen to the ranting of my honourable opponent."

I know how he felt.

First Casualties

Truth is not only the first casualty of war, there's a great big bull's eye painted on its back during election campaigns as well.

The 2011 federal election campaign is only a few hours old, but already the baloney is being sliced thick and fast.

The Conservatives have been trying for a long time to demonize the idea of a coalition among the parties that represent the votes of nearly two-thirds of Canadians. Stephen Harper, in fact, kicked off his campaign by denying that he had been willing to enter into a coalition with the Bloc Québecois and New Democrats in 2004 when Paul Martin was Prime Minister. Here is the text of the letter that he, Gilles Duceppe, and Jack Layton sent to the Governor-General at the time. You be the judge.

He pretended to be gracious, retreating from his earlier position that a coalition would not be "legitimate" (he shut down Parliament to prevent the opposition parties from forming one in 2008). But, referring to the Bloc, he contended that it would not be "principled to have a party dedicated to the break up of our country having a hand in running the government."

He's onto to something here: Canadians outside Quebec are extremely uncomfortable with the notion of a coalition that includes the Bloc.

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff promptly tried put the coalition issue to rest, going so far as to state, "We will not enter a coalition with other federalist parties."

In an election campaign, no one runs hoping to form a coalition. Both Harper and Ignatieff are hoping to gain a majority, but you can bet we haven't heard the last of coalitions from the Conservatives.

Another major theme of the Conservatives' campaign appears to be that the opposition is threatening the viability of the Canadian economy by defeating the government. They point to their stillborn budget as the blueprint that would have ensured prosperity for all.

But the Conservatives' own Economic Stimulus Program, on which they spent $26 million in public money to promote with an avalanche of advertising just this month, expires in five days. Their budget, a combination of corporate welfare aimed primarily at the big banks and oil companies and "boutique" tax cuts for select groups, was designed to push a few votes their way during the election campaign they knew it would provoke.

And in 2008, Harper was untroubled by the uncertainty an election would cause when he called an election just as the world economy was sliding into the Great Recession.

Canada survived that crisis better than most nations mainly because our banks (for once) didn't engage in the risky practices of their American and European counterparts, and because of the credibility of our central banker, Mark Carney. Harper and his finance minister, Jim Flaherty had to be forced kicking and screaming to adopt the Liberal and NDP measures that came to be called the Economic Stimulus Program.

Am I being more critical of Harper and the Conservatives than I am of the Liberals and NDP? Well, yes. But that's because Harper has a record in government for which he must be accountable. All we can do with Ignatieff and Layton is try to take their measure based on how credible they seem.

Harper would like you to ignore his record. That's why the Conservatives are trying so hard to smear their opponents. Hold on: this is going to be one dirty campaign.

In Other Words

This week may bring the fall of Stephen Harper's Conservative minority government and a possible federal general election in Canada. You can probably guess my opinion of the "Harper Government™". Here are some other voices.

"… Ignatieff, not a latter-day Nelson Mandela or Angela Merkel, is going to lead the Grits into the next election, whenever it comes. We owe it to ourselves finally to take him seriously."

"As Mr. Trudeau said when the press got on his case, 'Consider the alternative.' And so we thought of poor Bob Stanfield and Joe Clark. And Trudeau lost an election and won four, and served some 15 years as PM. As we should have given Harper his chance – and trust me, we've seen as good as it gets from this cold, mildly paranoid, mean-spirited and visionless man – the most viable alternative now deserves its chance."

"If Harper were kind and competent, there'd be no election talk." (David Olive, in his Everybody's Business blog for the Toronto Star)

"The Cons have laboured mightily to craft an Everyman persona for Stephen Harper. They've expended a few fortunes to convince you hockey rinks and Tim Hortons franchises are the summit of all Canuck wisdom — and it is Harper alone who loves it there.

Pardon me, but that's horsecrap. If anyone can produce a single undoctored photograph of Stephen Harper lined up for a double-double at a Tim Hortons prior to the 2004 election campaign, we'll happily post it in this space and issue the requisite mea culpa. But they can't. The Tim Hortons thing, like every other political affectation that preceded it, is the invention of boys in the backroom. It's BS. Ipso facto, he doesn't connect.

Ignatieff? To his credit, at least he doesn't pretend Timmys is the new Lourdes, with apparitions of Mackenzie King and Lester Pearson hovering above the doughnuts, imparting wisdom. He's John Kerry, and he knows it.

The question, then, isn't who will win the next election. It's this: Why is the choice between two men we feel don't know us, or even particularly like us?

Why is the choice between two men who don't connect?" (Warren Kinsella, in a column in the Ottawa Sun)

"While I guess while others may feel a bit squeamish about our PM ordering double-doubles and dipped donuts while the world, literally, moved on without him, I, for one, am grateful. The leader of our country has chosen to re-announce a three-month-old decision by a donut company instead of taking part in a conversation at the United Nations. In so doing, he's given me a whole bunch of fodder for research about how politicians see us now as shoppers/eaters now instead of educated citizens. Thanks, PM." (Susan Delacourt in her blog for the Toronto Star on the occasion of Stephen Harper passing up a United Nations conference to attend a Tim Hortons ribbon cutting)

Be Afraid

Be afraid, boys and girls. Be very afraid.

There's a very bad man out there and he's trying to hurt you. He wants to call you names, give you a wedgie, and steal your lunch money.

His name is Iggy, and he's the snaggle-toothed brother of Emmanuel Goldstein and first cousin to the devil himself.

I know, because our Dear Leader, Stephen Harper, and the Ministry of Truth have taken to the airwaves to warn us.

The dastardly Iggy wants to (gasp) form a coalition.

No, no, not a good coalition like the one between the Reform Party and the Progressive Conservative Party.

A wicked, evil, un-Canadian coalition like the ones in Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and all those other funny, foreign countries. You know, the kind of treasonous coalition where different parties in Parliament conspire together to represent the 65% of Canadians who voted for them.

But coalition-forming isn't the end of Iggy's diabolical plotting. He's also refusing to borrow money so big corporations can have the tax breaks they deserve. But if big business doesn't get lower taxes, how can they afford to pay their CEO's the millions they're entitled to? Or create the jobs they promise with every tax cut, but never seem to deliver because the tax cuts are never large enough?

It gets worse. Iggy wants the government to listen to police chiefs and enforce the law that requires owners of long guns to register them. Are we supposed to treat guns like cars? What is he, some kind of cop-loving, law and order nut?

What other sick, twisted plans does Iggy have up his sleeve? Balanced budgets and pharmacare? Pension reform and an accurate census? Clean air and medicare? Has the man no shame?

But sleep soundly, boys and girls, for our Dear Leader is hard at work, ever vigilant, poised to foil Iggy's evil schemes. Just vote for him and you need never fear any of them will come to pass.