Sunday, June 03, 2007

Acting Like "Liberals" Hurting Conservatives?

This is the second article I've read that offers the following thesis:
When Stephen Harper and his cabinet were acting like Conservatives they had a comfortable lead in the polls, but the moment they started governing like Liberals, their support cooled.

But when they began grasping for a majority by mimicking the former Liberal government in expenditure and tone, the Tories lost that edge. And they alienated large chunks of their base.

Question Period also had a segment on Harper "moving to the center", with the implication that he was alienating the base.

I'm not buying the connection between "Liberal policies" and the drop in the polls. While some base supporters may be feeling a tad irritable, I don't think that fact translates into poll erosion. Last time I checked, the Tories were still riding high in Alberta, surpassing their election percentages. In other words, Harper would have to do something extreme to move the base into the Liberal arms. If there is one thing that unites the right-wing, its Liberal hatred, I doubt seriously that wingers will embrace Stephane Dion, who is considered a center-left politician.

The argument seems to be politically motivated, trying to create the impression that Harper can get back to majority terrority if he becomes more "conservative". Given the fact the largest percentage of Canadians reside in the center, with a slight left lean, I don't quite understand the equation. In fact, it is obvious the Tory braintrust has concluded that Harper has to move to expand support within the Canadian circumstance.

Harper has fallen back in the polls because of Afghanistan, the environment, divisive policy on fiscal imbalance, complete incompetence on certain issues and a general wave of negative press. In reality, the flirtation with majority was only a fleeting moment, in the aftermath of the goodie filled budget and a awkward Dion. The complaints about aping the Liberals as a cause for erosion just doesn't jive with the polling. It was the big spending budget that saw the Tory high water mark, and actually saw a jump in Ontario and Alberta, with the per capita transfers.

If people want to buy into the logic that Harper needs to return to conservatism to get a majority, that is fine by me. That strategy will simply ensure the Conservatives electoral defeat.

26 comments:

ottlib said...

You have to remember Steve that much of the chattering class agrees with Stephen Harper.

Most of the media supports the Afghan War.

Most of the media does not support Kyoto because they believe it will cause too much damage to the economy. Read the editorial in the Globe and Mail yesterday to see that.

Most of the media does believe in the fiscal imbalance.

I say most because there are standouts that disagree but to a large extent the chattering class agrees with Stephen Harper.

So if he is wrong they are wrong. Nobody likes to be wrong so they are trying to find another reason why Mr. Harper has seen his support erode over the last couple of months.

His sudden conversion to "liberalism" is a convenient crutch. It is not the fact they and Mr. Harper are on the wrong on a whole host of issues. No it has to be a failing of strategy.

Karen said...

Funny, I just read that article too.

I have no doubt that some supporters are disappointed in Harper's pandering to the middle, but to suggest that they have moved their vote as a result, is ridiculous.

In the absence of a new Reform party emerging, where would they go?

I think Ezra Levant was ranting about this too. I'm with you. Keep up the pressure on Harper to turn right. In spite of it being more honest, (which they are not big on), it will not only lose him a majority, he'd likely kiss a minority gov't goodbye too.

Karen said...

Most of the media does not support Kyoto because they believe it will cause too much damage to the economy. Read the editorial in the Globe and Mail yesterday to see that.

Wasn't that something? How are they so easily spun? It seems that they bought the Baird spin presented to the Senate, without even delving into it.

This point and the rest of your comment, is going to make it incredibly difficult for Dion to get his points out. It also speaks to Steve's previous post.

ottlib said...

In fainess to the Globe they have been consistant in their objections to the Protocol and it predates Mr. Baird's BS.

The Globe is the newspaper of the Canadian business class and that is reflected in its editorial bent. Unfortunately Canada has been saddled with a 3rd class business class, who never fail to let fear and risk aversion get in the way of a good business opportunity. So it should not come as any surprise that its mouthpiece in the media cannot see the huge business upside of combatting global warming.

As usual, Canada will be left behind to watch the Americans, Europeans and Asians take advantage of the next big business opportunities in the environmental industry.

Olaf said...

Steve,

I don't really buy the "Gerry Nichols thesis" either, for whom the idea (that a majority government is one sharp right turn away) is either politically motivated or wishful thinking, likely both. I think I did a post a while back taking Nichols to task on the issue.

I also don't buy the "Ottlib thesis" either: that somehow "most" of the "chattering classes" are Harper boosters. The "collective media bias" angle is a convenient generalization used by Liberals and Conservatives alike (depending on the circumstances) to somehow make themselves feel better, reject criticism, pass blame, etc. etc. etc.

Being a Liberal (holding no limiting principles and governing with a finger in the wind) is tough work, and I just don't think Harper is up to it. I'm kidding, but only kinda. I don't think it's "acting like a Liberal" that has cost Harper, I think it's doing it poorly that has. If he'd have moved to the centre with even a bit of agility, he'd be doing better than he is now.

I always marvel at how pundits feel they can, with a few keystrokes, reduce the massive mystery of collective voter intentions to a single intangible factor.

Olaf said...

Most of the media does not support Kyoto because they believe it will cause too much damage to the economy. Read the editorial in the Globe and Mail yesterday to see that... The Globe is the newspaper of the Canadian business class and that is reflected in its editorial bent.

There are many people that agree, at this point, Canada cannot meet it's Kyoto targets. The majority of Liberal leadership candidates made this point. I'm pretty sure that Steve himself granted this not too long ago at my place. How much is the Globe/Canadian business class paying you, Steve?

Seriously, though, can you get over your conspiracy theories? The Globe and Mail is centre-right economically (as were Martin and Chretien, if I remember), and that doesn't mean they're somehow shills for Bay Street just because they would dare question whether Canada can meet it's targets at this point. I don't even think that those who would tell us we can meet our targets are aware of what this would entail.

I also love this:

As usual, Canada will be left behind to watch the Americans, Europeans and Asians take advantage of the next big business opportunities in the environmental industry.

Stupid Canadian business class! Obviously, they're too incompetent as a whole to take advantage of the increasing demand in the "environmental industry" without the government leading them by the hand. This, like everything else in life, is the governments fault Conveniently, this time around, a Conservative government.

Karen said...

. So it should not come as any surprise that its mouthpiece in the media cannot see the huge business upside of combatting global warming.

Isn't that tragic? My partner is involved in that big business world, thankfully now works for a company that is really moving forward on the environment front. My father was also in that world. Both are lib's and have fought upstream often.

David Peterson is on a board with my father, so I know that not all big biz is in that mode, but it's prevalant to be sure.

Your final paragraph makes me sad to be honest. There is so much potential there and I fear with Harper in power, we will miss the boat.

Dion is not going to change the conventional thinking per se, overnight, but if ideas come from him and the party, in a way that can motivate while addressing the risk, we'll have a much beter chance.

ottlib said...

olaf:

Let me be clear. I do not believe that most of the media are "Harper boosters". I just believe that most of it is currently on the same side as Mr. Harper on many issues. It should be noted that it was largely on the same side as Jean Chretien, on most issues, in the mid to late 90s.

I agree that there is no overt media bias although alot of news organizations definitely have their particular editorial bents. The Sun chain, Can-West Global, Torstar are prime examples. In general I find the media to be lazy and guilty of group think but it is largely non-partisan. Again, there are some exceptions.

"I always marvel at how pundits feel they can, with a few keystrokes, reduce the massive mystery of collective voter intentions to a single intangible factor."

Truer words have not been spoken olaf. There is no one reason why the Conservatives have experienced the slide of the last couple of months. The reasons are many and varied.

However, the media does not do complicated well. So they try to come up with a simple solution that sounds logical and reasonable but is the exact opposite as steve's post points out.

Olaf said...

Ottlib,

I agree that there is no overt media bias although alot of news organizations definitely have their particular editorial bents. The Sun chain, Can-West Global, Torstar are prime examples. In general I find the media to be lazy and guilty of group think but it is largely non-partisan. Again, there are some exceptions.

That's fair enough.

However, the media does not do complicated well. So they try to come up with a simple solution that sounds logical and reasonable but is the exact opposite as steve's post points out.

Agreed. I don't think the general public wants complicated done well while reading the morning paper, because it usually takes more than a few paragraphs.

Well what are the odds, Olaf and ottlib agree more than once - hey, are those locusts?

Steve V said...

"If he'd have moved to the centre with even a bit of agility, he'd be doing better than he is now."

That is probably true.

Just to clarify, I have said we can't meet our targets, here and at you place, but that doesn't translate into not supporting the process :)

Karen said...

However, the media does not do complicated well.

Well, there is the truth. It annoys me to no end, but it's true no matter what side of the spectrum you are on.

I wonder when we gave up demanding that?

Steve V said...

"However, the media does not do complicated well."

And, that reality feeds the idea of retail politics and flashy packaging. The devil in the details is irrelevant, all that matters is the headline, with some superficial, passive report.

ottlib said...

olaf:

How can you conflate my criticism of the Canadian business class with criticism of the government?

It was not even in my mind when I wrote that comment. And yes our business class has much to be desired. I would not call them incompetent. I would call them risk averse, lacking in vision and technocratic. Great for the branch plant economy we had in the last half of the 20th Century but next to useless in the new globalized 21st Century economy.

As well, you seem to think I believe in a great media conspiracy. I do not know whether that is because I am just not very clear or you are just choosing to interpret my words that way.

So again, let me be clearer. All newspapers and news organizations have consistant editorial positions. The Globe's is pro-business. Indeed, the Globe has worked diligently to maintain its status as being the authority on Canadian business and its business class. Unfortunately, the result of that is it often reflects both in its viewpoints.

The environmental industry is going to be to the first couple of decades of the 21st Century what the computer industry was to the last couple of decades of the 20th. It breaks my heart as a Canadian that our business class and the news organization that seems to have its ear lacks the vision to realize that.

On a totally unrelated note a thunderstorm is coming through so I have to turn off my computer. Hopefully, I can reconnect afterwards to continue this discussion.

Olaf said...

Steve,

Just to clarify, I have said we can't meet our targets, here and at you place, but that doesn't translate into not supporting the process :)

No, no it doesn't. But I don't remember the Globe every coming out and denigrating the process in any way - they've just said that we can't meet our Kyoto targets at this point, for which they're branded: a) Bay St. shills; b) mindless buyers of Baird's "spin"; and c) all around environmental heretics.

I'm not sure any of these descriptions would apply to you, however, and am just curious about why not? You've clearly been corrupted in some way for not agreeing with Dion, but the question is, who got to you? If it wasn't Bay St., and it wasn't Baird, and it wasn't "the denial industry", then who? My guess is a obscure but highly influential US counter-counter-intelligence paramilitary think tank, which has become the refuge of recently turfed Bush collaboraters Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. It's concentrated evil, I tell ya.

KNB, Ottlib: any more plausible theories?

Olaf said...

ottlib,

How can you conflate my criticism of the Canadian business class with criticism of the government?

I think I may have inadvertently conflated the three (including the media), in fact. it seems like such a natural occurence for many to switch between the actors (the CPC, media, and business world) who are supposedly collectively conspiring to invalidate any action on global warming. I have come across it so many times, that I mistakenly applied that opinion to you. Rereading your points, I see you made no such statement. My apologies.

Perhaps I'm the one who doesn't do complicated well... I blame the media (and, as goes without saying, the 13 years of Liberal inaction on improving public school education).

Gayle said...

"I don't think it's "acting like a Liberal" that has cost Harper, I think it's doing it poorly that has. If he'd have moved to the centre with even a bit of agility, he'd be doing better than he is now."

For what it is worth, I think he did it poorly because he did not do in honestly and sincerely. I think most people saw it as a cynical move to grab votes. I know your position is that Harper would have to stay in the middle if he wants to gain and maintain a majority, and to some extent I agree with you, however he seems to buy into this theory of incrementalism - as in, an incremental approach to senate "reform" is the way to bring the rest of Canada on line to his way of thinking. Perhaps he believes the same for all his policies.

Steve V said...

"I think he did it poorly because he did not do in honestly and sincerely. I think most people saw it as a cynical move to grab votes."

bingo!

Karen said...

KNB, Ottlib: any more plausible theories? .

Ahh sarcasm, the ultimate defense.

Riddle me this Olaf, if we had actually put Dion's plan in place, when he put it out there, where would we be now?

That the right has become self righteous on this issue is beyond the pale and the fact that the media supports this proves that they do not do their homework.

You guys fought any action, tooth and nail! Now you're claiming we did nothing? Well, in fact, that's down to you.

Brilliant! Disallow any movement on the issue, then claim nothing moved on the issue.

Olaf, even you see this don't you?

That the media doesn't is extremely disturbing to me.

Karen said...

gayle: however he seems to buy into this theory of incrementalism - as in, an incremental approach to senate "reform" is the way to bring the rest of Canada on line to his way of thinking. Perhaps he believes the same for all his policies.

I think you have a really valid point there. It's about sneaking them in, rather than having the courage to say it full out.

Who beyond us, is watching the Senate thing? Their ad's impact, but who knows what the Senate does? It's very insidious and perhaps brilliant. Dangerous though, if only someone would dare, in the media, speak to it.

ottlib said...

"Well what are the odds, Olaf and ottlib agree more than once - hey, are those locusts?"

Well olaf I did hear a group of what sounded like four horsemen trotting down my street during the storm but they had gone out of view before I could get a good look at them. Combine that with our agreements and...:)

I also agree with you that the Kyoto targets are now probably out of reach but I disagree that the solution is to abandon them. I believe there is more value in trying and failing to reach those targets as opposed to walking away from them.

If for no other reason than the Canadian government may find itself isolated after November 2008, particularly if a Democrat more open to combatting climate change wins the White House. The US can get away with being isolated on some issues because it is, well the United States, but Canada cannot find itself in that position.

Olaf said...

KNB,

Riddle me this Olaf, if we had actually put Dion's plan in place, when he put it out there, where would we be now?

It's almost impossible to say, although I'd love to hear your expert opinion. Do you know what the plan consisted of? Did you know it had no "hard caps" but only "intensity targets", which are now the biggest running joke amongst the eco-smug?

But please, educate me as to where we'd be right now if we'd only implemented Dion's cure-all. I'm all ears.


You guys fought any action, tooth and nail! Now you're claiming we did nothing? Well, in fact, that's down to you.


In fairness, I didn't fight for or against anything. I'd appreciate it if you'd address me as an individual and not as a mere cog in the larger (likely evil) conservative Frankenstein. :)

Karen said...

Re' Kyoto...it's no longer about targets, it's about respecting process, International process.

National environmental groups are taking the gov't, our government to court. German NGO's are suing us. Who is next? What a bloody awful state to be in.

I think it will only get worse after this meeting.

Canada went from lead to laggard in 16 short months. The world will judge as we do our dance here...the Harper/Baird shuffle. Can you think of anything more awkward than those two dancing...together...against the world?

Karen said...

Point taken Olaf... I meant the party fought tooth and nail.

I refuse to homework for anyone, but will say this, "intensity targets" at the time they were put forward made sense. That was a moderate way to push. Now, it's no longer a real tool.

That is evolution. Times change and the present understands a different solution from the past.

You're young, surely you don't want to be stuck in old terms.

To suggest that the conservatives have presented anything new, would be delusional. They are going back in time.

Olaf said...

KNB,

I refuse to homework for anyone

No need to do homework, just explain why you have so much faith in Dion's 2005 plan. I mean, you asked me a riddle that seemed to imply we'd be sittin pretty if only Harper was smart enough to do whatever Dion suggested in 2005. If you weren't implying this, please clarify. If you were, I think the onus is on you to say why we would be doing so great with a plan that I seem to think was largely similar, if only because you made the insinuation in the first place.

but will say this, "intensity targets" at the time they were put forward made sense. That was a moderate way to push. Now, it's no longer a real tool.

Are you being serious right now? Ok, I'll bite: tell me what precisely happened between 2005 (when Dion last put out a plan including intensity targets) and 2006 (when the CPC first raised the intensity targets plan) which made all the difference between an appropriate and crucial step to save the planet and one that is wholly irrelevant as a "real tool"?

Again, no rigorous climatological research is necessary, but if you're going to make assertions that seem completely unreasonable prima facie, the least you could do is explain your motivation in doing so.

That is evolution. Times change and the present understands a different solution from the past.

You're young, surely you don't want to be stuck in old terms.


How thought provoking... hope I can sleep tonight with this gem percolating through my vigorous young mind.

Anonymous said...

Steve,

Lorne takes it from a Western Canadian perspective. Who knows? Harper may rue the day that he did not call a snap election in early spring as many advisers such as Doug Finley urged him to.

With Bloc support, Harper decided to keep the minority government functioning wanting more solid support in Quebec. Will he get it? He scores well on leadership, but on issues such as environment and the war he is against public opinion there.

Karen said...

Apologies Olaf. There was too much going on here last night, I shouldn't have been commenting. Even I'm not following what I was getting at, :).