Roundup: Setting the ballot question

Posted on by

Last night, the At Issue panel pondered the kind of existential question of the past eleven weeks – what is the “ballot question” in the election. With so many weeks and so many events that have come up along the way – Mike Duffy, Syrian refugees, the niqab debate, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and as of yesterday, the poor judgement of Justin Trudeau’s now-former campaign co-chair. Oh, and I guess the economy, but that’s always been a bit of a backdrop that’s built on a bunch of ridiculous and false premises (no, the Prime Minister can’t really control the economy, or create jobs out of a hat). And while the At Issue panel pretty much all chose “change” as the ballot question, I almost think it may have been something more specific – something that the Conservatives themselves telegraphed from the very beginning of the election, when they started running those ridiculous ads with the “interview committee.” That question was “is Justin ready?” Coming into the Liberal leadership, he became Teflon to a certain extent – none of the attacks would stick to him, and his only wounds were the self-inflicted kind. So how did the Conservatives play it? Trying to question his readiness, and their tag line was “I’m not saying no forever, but not now.” And then the government decided to drop an eleven-week campaign instead of the usual five, the intention being to give Trudeau plenty of rope with which to hang himself. They drove expectations so low as to question his ability to even put on pants before a debate. And then Trudeau turned around and performed well in debates, and gained confidence on the campaign trail. Instead of tripping him up, those eleven weeks galvanised him, and people started to see that. He wasn’t making stupid blunders, and he stopped shooting himself in the foot. The NDP, by contrast, started to look increasingly craven as their promises outstripped reality (witness the “Swiss cheese” of their platform costing), and Harper looked increasingly tired and worn out, unable to come up with answers to issues of the day, his ministers (like Chris Alexander) imploding under scrutiny, and by this late point in the campaign, there is a sense of desperation, Harper now trying to insist a campaign branded around him is not really about him, while he associates himself with the Ford brothers, and is visiting ridings he already holds in the sense that he looks like he’s trying to save the furniture. And yet, he placed the very ballot question in people’s minds from the start. Trudeau answered it, in defiance of the rules of never repeating your attacker’s lines, and said yes, he’s ready. And increasingly, it looks like the voters believe that. Does that discount Mulcair? To a certain extent, but he was never the credible threat to Harper, nor was he ever intended to be. (Remember, the plan was for the Conservatives and NDP to wipe the Liberals off the face of the map and become the two party state that they both dream of – something which didn’t end up happening). Harper put the wheels in motion, and it looks like his creation has gotten away from him.

On the campaign:

  • Stephen Harper didn’t budge from his planned rally with the Ford brothers.
  • Thomas Mulcair tried to play up the Dan Gangier story by dredging up memories of the Sponsorship Scandal (though it’s a huge reach. Did he read the email?).
  • Trudeau insisted that Gangier’s quick resignation shows that his commitment to a changed Liberal party.
  • Here are some off-beat campaign moments from Thursday.

Good reads:

  • With the resignation of Gangier, the Liberal campaign co-chair, and Trudeau trying to regain his ethics mantle, here’s some more background on his activities.
  • FINTRAC and other anti-money laundering agencies are getting creepily intrusive thanks to new laws that cover “politically exposed persons.”
  • Here’s Kady O’Malley’s take on minority government formation, while The Canadian Press lays out some of the scenarios.
  • Three party leaders are all fighting for seats in Montreal, and it looks like both Duceppe and Mulcair may be having some trouble with theirs.
  • The Privy Council Office offered confidential briefings to the three parties on what’s in the TPP. They all turned it down.
  • The AFN has analysed the party platforms, and judges the NDP’s ahead slightly because of their commitment to revitalising Indigenous languages.
  • Kathleen Wynne says that federal Conservatives using her provincial sex-ed curriculum to bash federal Liberals is a “deplorable” tactic.

Odds and ends:

Here’s a look at the renovations to the House of Commons to accommodate the 30 new MPs.

Former diplomat Ken Taylor of the “Canadian Caper” fame (bastardized into the film Argo) passed away yesterday.

Here’s an interview with Rosemary Barton about her time as host of Power & Politics, and how she holds politicians to account.