Keith Beardsley2013-05-25T09:01:24-04:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=keith-beardsleyCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Keith BeardsleyGood old fashioned elbow grease.Why Is Harper Protecting Conservative Wrong-Doers?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32854112013-05-16T12:05:50-04:002013-05-16T12:06:05-04:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/
Spin it anyway they want, and some of their spin is hilarious, the reality is the Conservatives have been digging themselves deeper into the mud with each passing day. As we saw in the Labrador by-election, the public will only stand for so much before they punish a party.
As the latest Senate scandal gets murkier by the hour, it's a fair question to ask what on earth they are thinking in PMO.
Rather than jump into their bunker and defend senators under investigation, why didn't the Prime Minister suspend them from caucus until all the facts were in the open and the investigations/audits completed? If wrong doing was proven then the suspension could be made permanent. Either way the public would have seen a Prime Minister taking the integrity of his Senate members and government seriously.
The same holds true for the Penashue file. Rather than let the minister announce that he was resigning and seeking re-election, the Prime Minister should have announced that he had removed Penashue from cabinet and turfed him from caucus. Others such as Helena Guergis and Garth Turner had suffered that fate before. If the Prime Minister had done that there could have had a fresh nomination with a new candidate. The by-election results would most likely have been the same, but at least the Prime Minister would have been seen to be on the side of what is right and fair. Instead the public watched as the government lauded the individual and backed him to the hilt in the by-election. What type of signal does that send to the public?
In both the Penashue case and the recent Senate revelations the public is left with the impression that the Prime Minister is protecting individuals who have done something wrong. The public quite rightly should be asking "why?"
At the very least these individuals should have been put at arm's length from the caucus and the Prime Minister. No matter what the circumstances, no one should have written a cheque to cover off a Senator's reimbursement. That was just plain dumb. If the Prime Minister wasn't aware of this, who came up with this idea that shows such poor political judgment?
The Conservative caucus must be stunned at this on-going drama that unfolds day after day. Revelations of wrong doing or questionable deals impact not only the reputation of the Prime Minister, but also will play out at the local constituency level where Conservative MPs must face re-election. Conservative MPs should be concerned. How long will it be before the caucus demands action and for heads to roll?
]]>The Ironically Irresponsible Economic Action Plan Adstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32372422013-05-08T11:17:35-04:002013-05-08T12:13:38-04:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/
It is said that governments defeat themselves in their second mandate i.e.: years five to eight. In year seven voters see Tory senators falsely claiming housing funds and now being forced to pay back tens of thousands of dollars. We have the questionable use of taxpayers' dollars to send out Trudeau attack pieces through 10 percenters; the Auditor General reporting there are some $3 billion unaccounted for; and another huge ad buy for their Economic Action Plan ads that taxpayers see little value in. The opposition is right to target this version of fiscal accountability.
Yesterday in Question Period the Liberals employed a tactic we used quite often on them. Scott Brison reduced government spending down to something that the general public can understand and relate too. Essentially the Liberal talk point is, every time you play an Economic Action Plan ad you have spent the equivalent amount of money that could have given 32 students a summer job. Simple stuff, but it resonates with Canadian families struggling to get their kids through university. It also makes for great talk points on the BBQ circuit which is coming up shortly. This type of attack will resonate with taxpayers who see the ads as nothing better than a chance to have a bathroom break or grab a snack while they interrupt their TV program. The government pushback that they have saved Canadian families $3,000 in taxes since 2006 is lost on Canadians especially as I suspect none of us feel $3,000 richer.
Thomas Mulcair for the NDP was focused on the missing $3 billion. Perhaps he recalls our success against the Liberals with the "Billion Dollar Boondoggle" attacks. Those attacks helped to chip away at Liberal credibility and the term is still remembered by the public more than a decade later. Once again government pushbacks are weak. When your only defence is to quote the Auditor General (AG) you have a problem.
I can't imagine the Harper of 2006 responding in the same disinterested way that he is now in 2013. He would have been kicking butt to get answers to find out where the money went or if it was an accounting error etc. Auditor General's reports are not written overnight. There are months of discussions with departments leading up to the public release of the report. Did officials report the AG's concerns to their ministers? If so when? Mulcair is on to something if he can sustain his attacks. "When did you know, what did you do and when are you going to report back to us" is a theme that has worked for opposition parties in the past.
The Tory front bench is looking tired, perhaps the Prime Minister should have done his shuffle a few months ago (right now Jason Kenney and James Moore are by far the best performers when they stand in for the prime minister). In year seven, the Tories still have lots of time to pick up their game, but they will have to do it soon and they will have to stop shooting themselves in the foot.
]]>100% of Tax-Funded Mail Outs Go to 10% of Canadianstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.31632912013-04-26T18:10:25-04:002013-04-26T18:10:34-04:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/
"There are House of Commons rules for communications that we do with constituents across the country," Harper said. "All parties work within those rules, and all parties use those activities and use those rules."
Based on my own experience, this was a pretty accurate statement. Yes, they all do it. But should they?
These ten percenters are sent out through the House of Commons (i.e.: using taxpayer's dollars) and they are a mail out that is designed to allow an MP to communicate a few times a year with a mass mailing to 10 per cent of their constituents.
I wonder how many taxpayers who receive these flyers realize that they helped pay the bill for sending them out. I suspect, most if they even bothered to read them, would think it was a mail out from a political party that was paid for by a political party.
Whenever these issues surface, all of the parties get into the blame game and angrily point their fingers at the other parties and highlight examples from their opponent's abuse of these mail outs. But, none of the parties can adopt a holier than thou attitude.
I have received these propaganda items from all parties at one time or another. The same goes for the abuse of franked mail (the free mailing privileges of an MP), which has been used to dump more propaganda into a riding held by another party. Over time both the 10 percenters and franked mail have become part of a party's advertising strategy, but unlike TV and newspaper ads, they are paid for by the taxpayer instead of by donors to a party.
But why do taxpayers allow any party to use public funds in this manner? If a party wants to send out propaganda and attack pieces shouldn't each party have to pay for it?
In this day and age of technology and multimedia communications do we even need ten percenters?
All of the parties stress accountability and transparency and proper management of the public purse. If that is the case, none of the parties should have a problem asking the House of Commons to bring in stricter guidelines that eliminate partisanship from these items. That would be the right thing to do. As it stands now our political parties are getting a free ride at the taxpayers' expense.]]>Trudeau Attack Ads: Hit or Miss?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.31131182013-04-19T17:00:00-04:002013-04-19T17:45:44-04:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/
Suffice it to say there was quite a bit of anticipation in partisan ranks (from all quarters) to see how damaging they would be. For Conservatives, fond memories of the successful attack ads against Stephane (The Shrug) Dion and Michael (Just Visiting) Ignatieff left us impatiently waiting for this next edition aimed at Mr. Trudeau. Well, they have arrived, but I have mixed feelings about them.
On a personal level, I like the one with the direct comparison between Harper and Trudeau. For me that one makes sense and it does to a number of nonpartisans I have spoken to as well. The other one which features an auction for the Liver Foundation probably helps Trudeau a bit. If nothing else he is shown as human, a good sport and willing to have a bit of fun at his own expense. It is also an interesting contrast to the steely eyed, very formal, rarely smiling Stephen Harper.
It makes for an interesting discussion in political backrooms. If the Liberals plan on running Trudeau as the anti-Harper, will that ad hurt or help Trudeau in the long term?
Media reaction was typically negative or downplayed the potential effectiveness of the ads. But, if you are a Conservative, you expected the media to trash any ad that attacked their golden boy, so there was nothing new there. In the end it doesn't matter one bit what the media think or even what political partisans think -- it all comes down to what the voters think. We won't know that for some time, perhaps not until 2015.
Political attack ads are designed to make you think. Their aim is to get you to look at a person or an issue in a different light, one different from what the media or the party's political spin machine wants you to look at. Simply put, they work. While it seems everyone complains about them, they still watch them.
One of my favorite ads was from the 1988 "Free Trade" election. It was a very simple Liberal attack ad that showed an eraser wiping out the border between Canada and the United States. It was very effective.
An attack ad is not prepared overnight. An incredible amount of research goes into them. I can't imagine the number of hours I spent over the years providing clips, quotes or background notes for various attack ads. All of that gets reviewed, sifted, perhaps even tried on focus groups and eventually released to a huge amount of publicity. Even when a party doesn't have enough money to buy air time, they release their attack ads online. The media then helpfully write about them and provide links for readers to watch the ads, thus providing free publicity for the party concerned.
Attack ads can also backfire and help the opponent you are trying to tear down. Remember the Conservative 1993 ad attacking Chretien, or the Liberal 2006 attack ad about "Soldiers in the Streets."
It's far too early to tell whether these ads will work or not. Even if they don't there will be lots of time for the Conservatives to capitalize on Trudeau's mistakes and turn those mistakes into an ad. For example, why would he ever stand up and claim to want to protect the jobs of Canadians when he should have known he wrote a letter to the government asking for assistance to bring some foreign workers into his riding? Now that is where inexperience really shows. That has the making of a good attack ad!
Will the ads hurt Trudeau? We don't know yet, but all the hype about them has certainly helped the Conservatives to get people to look at them. Here is a quote from a mass mailing to supporters put out by the Conservative Party:
"... these ads have spread farther and faster than any ads we've ever done. We are communicating directly with Canadians rather than passing through the media's 'filter.' In two days, our ads were viewed more than 270,000 times on YouTube -- more views than we have ever received on any video before -- including during an election cycle." (April 18, 2013)
Are attack ads effective? The Conservatives seem to think so. What do you think?
]]>Will Justin Trudeau Crash and Burn?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.30702052013-04-12T17:25:10-04:002013-04-12T17:25:52-04:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/Today we have another poll, this one from Nanos, which shows the Liberals on the upswing. When looked at with other recent polls, the trend shows an upward movement for the Liberals, with a slight downward trend for the Conservatives and NDP.
It's an interesting trend and one that shouldn't surprise anyone considering the saturation coverage the media have given Justin Trudeau. I don't recall any other recent Canadian political figure receiving that amount of coverage while basically saying and doing nothing.
Bonus points to Trudeau if he can capitalize on the media's fascination with him. In politics you use every angle that you can to market yourself and get ahead. If being charming while saying nothing works -- go for it.
While always nice to get a lot of media coverage, Trudeau should be concerned that in the long run all the hype could hurt more than help him. Expectations are so high for him that I wonder if anyone could live up to them. Remember all the media hype around the previous savior of the Liberal Party, a gentleman by the name of Michael Ignatieff. It didn't help him.
When you don't live up to your party's or the public's expectations of you it can be a rapid and often nasty descent. Trudeau runs that risk. The key in politics is always under promise and over deliver. The media have pretty much guaranteed that Trudeau won't be able to do that.
Certainly Trudeau is a threat to the Conservatives, possibly more so to the NDP. He can't be taken lightly and as former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney has warned, ignore him at your peril. He is a very marketable individual which was summed up by Mulroney when he said "He's young, articulate, attractive -- a flawlessly bilingual young man. What's not to like with this picture?"
It is true at this point in time that Trudeau is a bit of a policy light weight, but you have a team and advisors and a party to help you prepare your policies and an election platform. Setting policy isn't a one man show. You don't have to be a policy heavy weight to win votes, your team (assuming you have a good one) can pick up some of that slack.
While Conservatives point to his lack of political experience, it's not fatal. It might be a drawback, but I can think of a few cabinet ministers since 2006 who stepped into their posts with virtually no experience in either politics or senior level management experience in the private sector. In politics there is a lot of on-the-job learning and you either adapt and grow into the position or fail.
This weekend will see the battle lines drawn and the stage set for the 2015 election. While possibly in the fall of 2015, there is some talk about it being moved up to the spring of 2015 to accommodate provincial election dates. If that's the case, there's still plenty of time for Trudeau to prep himself for a campaign and work on his House of Commons performance which so far isn't very good and hasn't amounted to much. Plenty of time for him to learn on the job.
Also, lots of time for Trudeau to make a mistake and as we all know the Conservative attack machine is one of the best at capitalizing on them and they will be waiting.
For the Conservatives, the key will be to never under estimate your opponent. Politics can be full of surprises and upset victories. I can recall one such election when Joe Clark beat a long serving prime minister by the name of Pierre Elliot Trudeau. You never underestimate your opponent.
]]>Un-Muzzle MPs and Parliament Will Progresstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.30216652013-04-08T12:38:25-04:002013-04-08T12:09:46-04:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/
It is an interesting way of addressing this mini-rebellion in Conservative ranks. Is this a true ad-hoc committee or a "stop gap" committee? There are only 34 regular sitting days plus a potential extra 10 days remaining before the summer break. This would include just seven-10 meetings of the national caucus.
One could be forgiven for thinking this might be a stall to run out the clock before MPs depart for a 12- to 14-week break. Will this caucus sub-committee report before the break and will agreements on how to address their concerns also be made before then? Will we see MPs with more freedom before they leave for the summer months? If decisions can be made quickly, then this is a good move on the Prime Minister's part.
Trying to escape from under the heavy hand of PMO will not be easy. Harper has run a tight ship which reflects his management style. Plus, the now deeply engrained tight control has been in place for roughly nine years. After the 2004 election and the damage done by Randy White's comments message control became the norm on the Conservative side.
While it is the Conservatives in the news right now, all MPs should be watching this closely. Will NDP and Liberal MPs stand up to their leader's offices and ask for similar freedoms. While not as tightly scripted as the Conservatives, they too have to toe the party line. When was the last time you heard a pro-life Liberal MP stand up and give an SO31 on an abortion related issue? Would the NDP allow one of their MPs to praise the shutting down of the long gun registry? Will the NDP allow their MPs to discuss their "personal" support for sovereignty issues in Quebec?
Whether or not to allow more free votes in the House is one option to consider. This allows an MP more freedom to represent their constituents on key issues and gives them some freedom when moral issues such as abortion or capital punishment are raised.
For example the 1987 vote on capital punishment was a free vote with Mulroney and some of his cabinet voting against the bill while a majority of Conservative MPs supported it. In more recent PC Party days (from 1997 up to the merger) to avoid a split in caucus or to avoid the scene of MPs voting against the Leader's public position, allowing a free vote was often the solution.
Question Period is another area of friction. What is wrong with allowing Opposition MPs some additional freedom by limiting the list of questioners the party (one can read Leader's Office and House Leader's Office here) gives to the Speaker? Why not limit their influence to just the leader's round and the double sets of questions?
The following single questions can be left to other MPs who stand to be recognized by the Speaker. Now wouldn't that shake things up a bit?
The same can be done on the government side. Why not let government MPs stand and be recognized to ask one of their own ministers a question? It would help to get rid of those awful soft ball questions plus give government MPs a chance to ask real questions on real issues of concern to them and their constituents.
While the focus is on the Conservatives, all MPs should be watching how this develops. If Parliament is to be relevant, it must change. To do so will require the efforts of MPs from all of the parties.
]]>Why Rebel Tory MPs Might Regret Challenging Haprertag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.29621872013-03-27T08:03:30-04:002013-03-27T12:58:10-04:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/
CTV is reporting that sources tell it that "nearly two dozen Conservative MPs met secretly on Monday to discuss the issue of PMO's control.". I doubt that number is accurate. First of all, a meeting that size is almost impossible to keep secret on the Hill. If it was held off the Hill in a secret location then it would be of much greater concern. However, if the number is accurate, then one has to look at the issue that the dissident MPs want to advance and it's then much easier for the PMO to identify who was most likely at that meeting.
It is no secret that there is a lot of dissatisfaction in the ranks of the backbenchers, but it is aimed not so much at the Prime Minister, but at the staff in the PMO. Harper's first PMO was largely hand-picked. The staff, regardless of their age, was made up of veterans. Many had worked for MPs; many had strong working relationships with the caucus. That is not the case now, with instances of former summer interns being put into positions where they tell veteran MPs, even ministers, what to do and when. Hence the derogatory term "the boys in short pants" that MPs use to describe PMO staff.
Conservative "Member's Statements," or SO 31s, were vetted by the leader's office long before Harper came to power. There was, and still is, a rotational system in place that makes sure every MP has an opportunity to speak. Unless there has been a dramatic change, even with the rotational system, OLO staff or PMO staff spend many hours a day trying to find MPs who want to give an SO 31. Often staff end up having to write the SO 31 at the last minute, as MPs either don't have the time or interest in doing so.
If the situation is the same now, and I suspect it is, then this so called revolt is not about PMO control of SO 31s as much as it is about the Prime Minister not allowing certain MPs to push an agenda item, in this case their views on abortion.
This will change the tone of the debate within caucus. It can be as divisive an issue internally as it is publicly. The key question is how will the rest of the backbench MPs respond? Do they back the dissidents even though they disagree with their policy position? Do they use this issue to send a signal to the Prime Minister and his Chief of Staff that it's time they found a way to improve dialogue between MPs and PMO staff? Do they use this opening to flex their muscles and stand up to the Prime Minister to demand more independence?
If the Prime Minister can confine this issue to a debate over policy he can either relent and let them speak out on this topic or come down with an iron fist. The first sign of where he might go on this issue was the Whip's defense of the PMO position with the reference to "a team." The MPs ran and were elected to office on a common party platform, one they agreed to represent and promote. If the Prime Minister insists on keeping their issue off the table and they refuse to be a "team player" the dissidents have few choices, either back down or sit as independents.
Is the bulk of the caucus ready to assert what many believe are their rights as an MP to represent their constituent's issues even if it goes against party policy? Are they ready to demand more independence? I don't think they are at that point yet.
How well have the rebellious MPs thought this through? They are the ones who forced the issue into the public domain instead of confining it to an internal caucus discussion. Are they prepared to sit as independent MPs? If they are, then the days ahead will be most interesting to watch.
]]>Can I Write a Blog About Justin Trudeau's Latest Gaffe? Just Watch Metag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.29172182013-03-20T17:37:49-04:002013-05-20T05:12:02-04:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/Just Watch Me." Those words of course were spoken as his father was implementing the War Measures Act designed to curtail civil liberties.
For someone who claims that he wants to do politics a new way, he seems to slip back into old proven methods of getting attention.
I doubt this was a planned slip up. In politics, sometimes you do say things to advance your issue or even create a smokescreen or diversion for a bigger issue. But, in this instance that doesn't seem to be the case.
It's no surprise that he thinks that he can beat Stephen Harper, but he chose the wrongs words to say so. He has to believe he can win or he wouldn't be running for the Liberal leadership, but really shouldn't he stop and think before putting his foot in his mouth?
Justin has a habit of doing this. Remember his swearing at Environment Minister Peter Kent back in December 2011? While it wasn't "fuddle duddle" he still had to stand and apologize. Other than providing him with a bit of ego satisfying extra media coverage, it didn't earn him many points.
He also put his foot in his mouth when he suggested "...maybe I would think about wanting to make Quebec a country" if Stephen Harper's vision of Canada was to come true. If people thought that might help him in vote rich Quebec, he probably lost an equal number of votes with his "Just Watch Me."
And of course if you want to alienate the west, why not mention that "Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work." While Trudeau did apologize and suggested that he meant Stephen Harper and not Albertans, that gem of a comment played a part in the Liberals losing the Calgary bye-election.
One can argue that we should give him a break, but he is playing in the big leagues now. Every word, every thought, every gesture will be analyzed and where applicable used against you.
One can see the Conservative election ads now... Justin Trudeau's scrawled "Just watch me" played back to back with a news clip of his father saying the same thing. His comment might play well with the younger generation, but there are a lot of baby boomers and seniors who don't have fond memories of his father -- and they vote.
His campaign team must be shaking their heads, but the good news for them is that so far Justin Trudeau hasn't given the "Salmon Arm salute" to anyone.
]]>Garneau Stayed in the Race too Longtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.28681942013-03-13T13:31:59-04:002013-05-13T05:12:01-04:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/ var src_url="https://spshared.5min.com/Scripts/PlayerSeed.js?playList=517701203%2C517695126%2C517622709%2C517618785%2C517589999%2C517568328%2C517551642%2C517675085&height=411&width=570&sid=577&origin=undefined&relatedMode=2&relatedBottomHeight=60&companionPos=&hasCompanion=false&autoStart=false&colorPallet=%23FFEB00&videoControlDisplayColor=%23191919&shuffle=0&isAP=1"; src_url += "&onVideoDataLoaded=HPTrack.Vid.DL&onTimeUpdate=HPTrack.Vid.TC"; if (typeof(commercial_video) == "object") { src_url += "&siteSection="+commercial_video.site_and_category; if (commercial_video.package) { src_url += "&sponsorship="+commercial_video.package; } } document.write('');
Marc Garneau's decision today to withdraw from the Liberal leadership race was not unexpected. His hard-hitting attacks on the front-runner (even challenging Trudeau to a one-on-one debate) over the last few weeks indicated that either he or his team was becoming increasingly frustrated that they could not move ahead, build additional support and overtake Justin Trudeau.
If anything, the only surprise was that Garneau stayed in the race as long as he did. Perhaps he hoped for a last-minute shift in support, or that Liberals would wake up and see what he had to offer? If that was the case he was wasting his time.
We also have to keep in mind that a candidate's level of support offers an indication into their ability to raise campaign funds; in this case Garneau couldn't come close to Trudeau. If he couldn't close the gap on Trudeau, then it was better for him to step aside now instead of adding on expenses that would have to be paid up once the Liberal race was over.
Garneau was in second place and while far behind the frontrunner, he had a solid lead over his over rivals. The big question becomes what do the other contenders do now? None of the other leadership hopefuls had a chance of stopping Trudeau. Even if they all rallied around one person and attracted a lot of Garneau's former supporters it is unlikely they could come close to stopping him. Trudeau's victory is pretty much guaranteed.
Do the other candidates stay in or do they join the Trudeau juggernaut? Do they stay in and fight to the bitter end? Do they stand on their principles and risk humiliation when the votes are counted? Or do they join Garneau and capitulate now?
The Liberals have been through this scenario before -- seeking and finding a new messiah to lead them back from the political wilderness. First it was Michael Ignatieff and now Justin Trudeau gets cast in that role.
The problem for both Ignatieff and now Trudeau is how do you measure up to expectations? One of the keys to success in politics is to under-promise and over-perform. When everyone has such high expectations of you, it's very easy to leave them disappointed.
If the NDP and Conservatives and the Conservatives had any doubt as to whom to target, they can take the gloves off now. All the more so as it is obvious that Trudeau does have the ability to gather supporters. Like him or not he has the potential to be a formidable opponent and challenger in the next federal election it is in their best interests to try to take him down before 2015.
Either way, following politics in Canada is becoming interesting again.
]]>Trudeau Had Everything to Lose in Garneau Challengetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27599352013-02-26T12:38:03-05:002013-04-28T05:12:01-04:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/he wanted a one on one debate with Justin Trudeau and Trudeau turned him down. That was a smart move on Trudeau's part, dumb one on Garneau's.
While it's true many people would like to know where Trudeau stands on a variety of issues, there is no reason for him to get involved in a one-on-one debate. Right now he is the front-runner and he has the most to lose with such a format.
If Trudeau is ahead what point is there in accepting such a challenge? It would put him at risk of making a mistake or in this case, having Garneau prove to the public and media (those that don't already suspect it) that Trudeau is "policy light." There is simply no upside for Trudeau in accepting such a challenge.
In addition, if he had accepted the Garneau challenge, Trudeau would have indicated to the other challengers, delegates and registered leadership voters that he was concerned about Garneau's momentum and that he needed the debate to knock Garneau down a peg. Accepting would have raised Garneau to equal status as a front-runner, something he is clearly not at this time.
Trudeau also had to look beyond the debate as well. Losing a debate to Garneau would have given the "anyone but Trudeau" folks, as well as the supporters of other candidates, someone to rally around to stop the Trudeau juggernaut. It certainly wasn't in Trudeau's interest to risk providing that opportunity.
As for Marc Garneau, outside of the temporary blip in media interest that his press release caused, did he seriously think Trudeau would accept? Such a move also signals that Garneau just might be getting a bit desperate that he hasn't closed the gap on Trudeau, either in supporter numbers or dollars raised.
Garneau's challenge to a one-on-one with Trudeau also brings into question whether or not Garneau is a team player. How does he think the other leadership challengers will view his wanting to bypass them? If he is so willing to insult them (and their supporters) by wanting to bypass them at this stage of the leadership race, does he still expect their support later on? Win or lose he still has to work with them in the future.
Certainly Garneau's challenge provided a few minutes of interest in what so far has been a pretty dull leadership race, but it went nowhere. Did the challenge help Garneau move ahead in the contest? I doubt it; instead he might have alienated more supporters than he gained.
]]>Eight-Year-Olds Get Attendance Taken, Why Not MPs?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.26943672013-02-15T12:28:31-05:002013-04-17T05:12:01-04:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/Senator Dennis Patterson is also under the microscope with questions raised about whether or not he meets Senate residency standards.
With most of the issues involving recently appointed Conservative senators one has to wonder about the vetting/decision-making process and what was explained to them when they were first approached about the position. Just how well were the residency requirements and expectations explained?
One thing is sure though, by the time this is over, residency requirements for future Senate appointments will be crystal clear.
With everyone demanding Senate reform (yes, 10-year limits would be nice), we shouldn't forget that there are some things the Senate gets right. For instance taking attendance and docking a senator's pay if they are absent too many business days. That requirement is long overdue on the House side.
How many voters realize that no one other than the party whips knows how many days an MP has been in the House? With many votes going unrecorded, taxpayers don't even know if they showed up to vote!
Yes, I am aware that an MP can be very busy and be working in his/her riding etc. But why shouldn't the folks who pay their salaries (i.e. taxpayers) know if they were at work and how many times they were away? It is hard to believe that in this day and age, MPs are still forbidden from even mentioning by name another MP who is away. Isn't it time to reform that point too?
If we look at just the last couple of years, how many leadership candidates disappeared from the House of Commons to contest a leadership race? Essentially taxpayers subsidized them and paid their salary while they crossed the country (hopefully not using their MP travel points). The counter argument is that they are always available to deal with constituency issues, but really, how likely is that when they are totally focused on winning? We all know it is left to a couple of riding staff to handle issues.
Why shouldn't leadership contenders lose pay if they are out campaigning and don't show up to work? Does anyone know how many days Justin Trudeau or Marc Garneau have been in the House since the Liberal leadership race started? Why shouldn't we know? We are paying their salaries. Why shouldn't they be forced to take a leave-of-absence and let the Speaker's Office administer their offices in a manner similar to when an MP leaves between elections? Why shouldn't future Conservative and Green Party leadership candidates be forced to do the same thing?
There are clerks in the chamber and working with committees, is it so hard to take attendance? Would it be so difficult to have a simple web site that keeps track of a Member of Parliament's attendance, one that the public or media can check?
So, over to the Speaker and the party leaders, do you support the taking of attendance for MPs and publicly disclosing the results? Are we letting MPs have a free ride? What do my readers think? Is it a good or bad idea?
]]>Are the Conservatives Shooting Themselves in the Foot?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.26802182013-02-14T12:45:08-05:002013-04-16T05:12:01-04:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/
I am speaking about NDP attacks on the Senate and the ongoing issues faced by the Prime Minister as he deals with Patrick Brazeau, and the financial questions hanging over the heads of Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy and let's not forget robo calls (round two).
These are good issues for the NDP. First because they don't like the Senate and many would prefer it be abolished, and second because nothing wakes the public up faster than a scandal or the hint of one.
Parliamentary privilege being what it is, all sorts of innuendo can be built into an opposition party's questions and for the most part the government is restricted to some pretty standard defensive lines. Voters will be hearing a lot of answers from the government side along the lines of "we are investigating," or "inquiries are being made," or "all monies will be accounted for." It reminds me a bit of Scott Brison, then the Liberal Public works minister, repeating day after day "Let Justice Gomery do his job." There really isn't much else that the Conservatives can say.
Public trust in politicians being what it is, I doubt the public will every fully believe those answers. Even if the Conservative senators are cleared, there will always be that little bit of nagging doubt in the public's mind. It remains to be seen if this story has legs or if anything else will come out from the red chamber that will feed this issue. Right now, the NDP don't have enough to defeat this government, not even if an election were to be called tomorrow, nor is it enough to tarnish the Prime Minister's image. Not yet at least, but each little bit of controversy contributes to eroding trust in the Conservative brand. Add in robocalls to the issue of alleged financial impropriety by senators and you have several negative issues piling on top of each other.
By focusing on these issues and chiselling away at the credibility of the party and both its image of being good financial managers and the honesty of its appointees, the NDP is doing what good opposition parties do -- chip away, chip away, chip away. The NDP has no choice but to go for the long game right now as the next election is quite far away. But every bit of negative publicity hurts.
It is often said that governments defeat themselves and it is issues like these that accumulate over time and eventually ruin your brand. The NDP are doing exactly what we did to the Liberals. No party is invincible, especially when it's your own side shooting you in the foot.
]]>When MPs Cross Party Linestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.26252722013-02-06T08:26:01-05:002013-04-08T05:12:01-04:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/Bruce Hyer's comments on the difficulties he faced when he wished to vote against the NDP's position on the long-gun registry highlights the difficulties and pressures felt by MPs when they vote against their party's wishes. It was quite interesting to see that when a vote is in question, even the so-called "progressive" NDP are no different than the Liberals or Conservatives when it comes to enforcing party discipline. In all three parties it's the leader's way or the highway.
Party discipline is a fact of life in federal Canadian politics. It most often shows up on the floor of the House of Commons where MPs dutifully stand and vote the party line on any number of issues or motions. The public would be surprised at how often MPs are handed a sheet of paper that tells them how they are to vote on various motions, proposed amendments to legislation etc. On the government side of the House the "Vote Rationale" is provided to Conservative MPs prior to every vote.
A vote rationale is even provided to Conservative MPs prior to a vote on a Private Member's Bill. However, there remains some flexibility for the MPs unless the bill impacts the party platform or public positions taken by the leader. In that case any MP not toeing the line can expect considerable pressure to be exerted.
On every vote, the Whip will note how his/her MPs voted, who was present, who failed to show (who had urgent and pressing business in the riding that day) and every MP knows that going against the party line may have repercussions. These can extend from being ignored by colleagues, to eventual reassignment to some of the least desired committees, to lack of speaking time, or few if any questions if the MP is an opposition member. There are an infinite number of ways that the leader's office can remind the MP of their displeasure.
This discipline or "thought control" extends beyond the Commons to committees as well. Here members are often briefed by staff from the various leaders' office, minister's office, or critics' office as to how they should vote. By necessity on the government side discipline is usually tighter as its government legislation or positions that are under attack. Disagree with the party position and you will quickly find another MP substituted into your slot on the committee when a key vote comes up. You might even find yourself removed from that committee.
The ultimate power that rests with all leaders is their ability to have an MP thrown out of caucus. Even if that is not the case, every candidate whether brand new or sitting MP, knows that the leader must sign their papers at election time. It is a brave MP who stands on principle and refuses to knuckle under.
This is hardly serving the best interests of your constituents, and parties over the years have promised more freedom for MPs, more free votes etc., but little comes of it. All too often deviance from the party line by an MP becomes a media story and it plays as an embarrassment of the respective leader. It is no wonder then that party leaders react so strongly when this happens.
All of this helps to contribute to the negative perception that the general public has of parliament and MPs. It will only get worse as hyper-partisanship is now deeply entrenched in the House and all parties regard the other sides' MPs as their enemy and not their colleagues. Voting with the enemy is not something most MPs will ever stand to do.
]]>Why Cullen Can't Make Question Period More Civiltag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25751442013-01-29T17:41:07-05:002013-03-31T05:12:01-04:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/for at least attempting to clean up the poor decorum in the House. However, I doubt his suggestions will go anywhere as the Conservatives will have to cooperate and that is unlikely. The Conservatives will give the standard answers that they want to see more civility, but Cullen's motion will be shunted off to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and like the previous recommendations of Michael Chong, they will sit there gathering dust.
Cullen is right to focus on the issue of SO 31s being used solely for attack purposes. All sides use them to ramp up the rhetoric and all sides are guilty of misusing them to batter the other side. Why not ask all of the House Leaders to agree that the Standing Orders be amended in such a way as to limit the topics that can be discussed in an SO 31? Either that or do away with them altogether. In this day and age MPs have numerous ways to congratulate constituents or to flag individual contributions in their ridings. The SO31 is fast becoming a relic of the past.
It is almost impossible for the Speaker to discipline MPs for using extreme distortion of facts. That would involve them entering into the area of debate. That is not a situation most Speakers are likely to get involved in. At the same time, no Speaker can be an expert on all issues raised in the House and it's impossible for them to be able to decide in a split second whether an item or claim made in an SO31 is accurate or not.
Cullen wants to give the Speaker the power to suspend MPs and dock the pay of repeat offenders. However, Speakers have suspended MPs in the past; the catch is they have to be willing to do it. In the Mulroney years, MPs were suspended from the House, usually for a 24-hour period or until they apologized for their misdeed.
It didn't always work as on occasion to get that extra bit of media coverage that the MP wanted, getting thrown out of the House for a day or so provided a bit of incentive for bad behavior. I do recall a few of those suspensions being handed out to NDP MPs as well for a variety of offences that were deemed by the Speaker to be unparliamentarily.
If the offender is an opposition MP it is quite simple for the Speaker to skip over that individual in Question Period. If they are not in the Question Period line up (don't forget the Speaker has a list of all questioners for that day) then skip over one of that party's questions. It won't take long for party leaders and their House Leaders to realize that their side is hurting by not getting to ask questions that could earn them media coverage.
The government side is harder to discipline as the only questions they ask are the phony softball questions Conservative MPs lob at their own ministers.
On the government side, using up time in Question Period through the use of numerous standing ovations, extended applause for government answers, disruptive behaviour that requires the Speaker to stand to gain control of the House, works. The more time you waste, the fewer questions the opposition can ask.
The government side simply wants Question Period to end. They want to escape without some minister or parliamentary secretary messing up and handing the opposition further ammunition. Extending Question Period takes away any advantage gained through that type of behavior.
It will be interesting to see what happens to Cullen's proposals. Will they join Michael Chong's on the shelf or will all sides see it is in their best interests to improve decorum in the House?]]>What Did Spence's Hunger Strike Accomplish?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25508972013-01-25T11:09:02-05:002013-03-27T05:12:01-04:00Keith Beardsleyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-beardsley/
Are Canadians more aware today and do they have a better understanding of the abysmal living conditions in First Nations communities? Probably not, such conditions were already well known and have been for decades. To her credit, when Spence began her "hunger strike" she did succeed in creating a spike in interest in some broader aboriginal issues. However, her stubbornness and overplaying her hand will have nullified much of the goodwill she initially gained for First Nations issues with the general population.
Has she succeeded in uniting the First Nations leadership so that they can negotiate from a position of strength with this Prime Minister? No, she has done the exact opposite. National chief Atleo has been weakened, perhaps fatally and no amount of phony rhetoric about going forward united can cover that up.
The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) has also been weakened. Internal divisions are much more evident and it will be more difficult to get the chiefs to accept any agreement that Atleo and the Prime Minister might reach. Too many chiefs staked out their positions in front of the national media. To reach an agreement would require various chiefs to back down from their very public demands and that is not likely to happen.
Some would argue that she has instilled a sense of pride in members of the First Nations, especially the younger generation. I would argue that with a rich history, culture and traditions, it has always been there and any renewed interest is more likely due to the founders of the Idle No More Movement, not Chief Spence. It was this grass roots movement that deserves the credit for getting the government's attention. Yes, she was and still is an inspiration to some of the participants in this movement, but she was never a spokesperson for it. The movement will continue to gain strength with or without Chief Spence and the anger expressed by many participants' remains valid as long as issues remain unresolved. The movement will not go away and this summer could be an interesting one for the government if they can't show real progress on First Nations issues.
Nor was Spence successful with her original demand that there be an immediate meeting with the Prime Minister and Governor-General. She did manage to get a meeting between the Prime Minister and the AFN moved up to an earlier date, but that is one that would have happened anyways.
Spence was successful in getting the Liberal and NDP caucus to sign a 13-point declaration, but what is that paper worth? Bob Rae is the interim leader of the Liberals and a new Liberal leader will be elected shortly and some of the candidates aren't even in the caucus. Will they feel bound by this document, regardless of what conditions they might face down the road? When in opposition it's your job to criticize the government, but the key is to remember that one day you might be the government and your view of the world and how government functions might suddenly change. For example, every opposition party (including the two founding parties for the Conservatives) is always opposed to omnibus bills. Do you want to lock yourself into and tie the hands of any future government that you might lead? Once in government, you get a first look at the books and when you sit down to deal with the myriad pieces of legislation that need to be updated, omnibus bills may suddenly become very attractive.
On the government side not much has changed either. Stephen Harper is still the Prime Minister. We have the same Aboriginal Affairs minister (at least until there is a shuffle sometime in the summer) and PMO still drives the agenda, sets policy and the "boys in short pants" continue to push ministers and ministerial staff around, even though they often know far less about an issue than the staff and ministers who deal with it on a daily basis.
The Conservative caucus will continue to sit on their hands when PMO brings forward another omnibus bill because too many are afraid of the repercussions of standing up to PMO, especially when there is a potential shuffle coming this summer.
In other words not much has changed. Far too many politicians make the mistake of letting their ego and a belief in their own press clippings stand in the way of common sense. It took 44 days for common sense to prevail. Now that her strike has been resolved, it remains debatable if Chief Spence accomplished very much. Time and history will be the final judge on that point.]]>