Infrastructure Funds:Getting it right

The Gagnier scandal at the end of the campaign brought back some bad memories. It is lucky for the Liberals that the story did not break before Thanksgiving when the election was likely decided.

These are exciting times. I would have loved, for example, to have been at the department of Foreign Affairs as Stephane Dion, an intellectual steeped in the great Canadian traditions of dialogue and multilateralism, came through the door.

But the novelty will not last and Liberals will eventually be judged on their record. The signature economic policy of the campaign was a promise to increase infrastructure spending to spur growth.
But accounting for big government projects in Canada has not always been complete and funds have often been diverted to some questionable ends.

If the allocation of infrastructure funding is not done transparently, the old misgivings about the Liberals that could have fueled the Gagnier scandal if it had been timed right, will return with a vengeance.

What I am trying to say is: I'm really glad the Liberals are back in power but don't disappoint me again. Let's get it right this time.

New Beginnings

Liberals are back in power. I had come to accept being unhappy about the government to the point that I was not longer aware of it. So it was surprising how relieved I felt listening to the announcement of the new Liberal cabinet today. I needed to pinch myself to be sure it was real.

Knowing Stephane Dion is now Minister of Foreign Affairs is especially sweet.

I'll be posting again from time to time with a focus likely on the signature Liberal promise of increased infrastructure spending.

System Error; Reboot

Before moving this blog back to issues that drive my interest in Canadian Liberalism, here's my own analysis of what has gone wrong recently. Its pretty much the same as I wrote after the 2008 election.

This is grossly simplified but the intention is to highlight the structure of the party and how I suspect this affects the outcome. It goes like this. There are three mutually reinforcing elements in an electoral win: the campaign, the strength of the party base and luck. You need some of all three to win.

The Liberal campaign was good. It ran smoothly, the events were well-organized, and there were no major gaffes. IMO Ignatieff did a superior job on his first attempt. Much better than I was expecting. And I think he would have improved in a second election. I don't blame him. The people at the top ran a good show. But 1) they had bad luck when Quebec broke for the NDP which no one could have predicted. And 2) efforts to engage the base have not gone far enough.

If you have a small base, the likelihood that a good campaign will resonate is decreased. By base I mean people who reliably vote for the party and just can't bring themselves to vote strategically. These people vote, donate money, volunteer and, perhaps most importantly, move the opinions of their family and friends. You need to have a base to even begin to be taken seriously. The federal NDP have suffered from this problem for 50 years. The Conservatives have a formidable base that is the result of years of effort. And the Liberals have seen their base shrink.

A strong Liberal base would have also generated the money needed to respond to the massive Conservative media buy. The Conservatives created a negative image of Ignatieff that, like Dion, he was unable to overcome. Unsurprisingly, advertising works. If the Liberals hope to compete, they will have to raise an equivalent amount of money from their supporters.

Although Ignatieff's country-wide tour was a step in the right direction, I suspect the emphasis was more about preparing him for the campaign and building his leadership (top-down) than about a more radical change in the dynamic of the party (horizontal connections between individual members) that would I think reinvigorate the base. A leader can only shake so many hands. The historic strength of the Liberal base has permitted a culture in the head office that focuses on 'the campaign' rather than base-building. I don't doubt the intelligence and sincerity of the people leading the party. These are good Liberals. And I think there has been some effort to try new approaches at outreach. But it has not yet begun to address the problem adequately.

Scrap the per vote subsidy

The loss of the per vote subsidy will likely force an important and long needed shift in the organization of the Liberal party. The per vote subsidy allows the central office to spend money in the name of the voters without the need to ask for their input. The subsidy in effect insulates the party leadership from interacting with the grassroots.

Now if the head office hopes to pay the electricity bill, it will have to wholly engage the membership. The party will become intimately familiar with the aspirations of the membership or die.

Its anecdotal evidence for sure but members of my family who live in four different regions of the country and have a long history of donating bucks to the party receive more cold calls from the Conservatives than calls from the Liberals. The Conservatives have taken every opportunity to reach out: radio, television, leaflets in the mail, cold calls. But a simple call from the Liberals to all its past donors? Not so much.

A Strong Conservative Mandate

The Conservatives have won a strong mandate tonight to follow through with their crime agenda, scrap the hated gun registry and decrease the corporate tax rate. I think Canadians tend to prefer the tough guy when choosing a PM. We have clearly chosen Stephen Harper for the next four years.

If the left hopes to win eventually against Stephen Harper there will need to be some reorganization. The Liberal party won't gain much support if all it stands for happened in the last century. Although I have a sentimental attachment to the party, I am uncomfortable with the idea that it must be preserved because it is some sacred institution that Canada cannot survive without.

There needs to be a discussion with the NDP. Whether I personally could support the results of that discussion is an open question. There has always been something about Jack Layton I don't like but can't quite put my finger on. I am certain Stephen Harper will help me figure out exactly what that is.

Until recently the sudden rise of the NDP seemed as improbable as me voting Conservative in the next election. Now alot of things seem possible.

Predictions out the window

Alot of people think that the NDP surge in Quebec indicates that the separatist movement is failing. But its not that clear to me.

A significant number of Quebec voters (more than enough to swing an election) are willing to vote for a federalist party in the Canadian election and then turn around and vote for the PQ in the provincial election. Its happened before and will likely happen again this year.

But maybe I should hold back on predictions. Who would have predicted a week ago that the NDP would poll first in Quebec? I didn't. You didn't either. And if you couldn't predict what would happen this week, why would you think you can predict what is going to happen next week?

The Liberal campaign has gone far better than I expected. Its been really solid. Ignatieff has been hitting all the right notes with me. And I really like the Liberal platform which puts families before jets, jails and corporate tax cuts.

If you believe in the Liberal vision and want to stop Harper, its time to come out swinging. Its time to fight for the country you want.


Image license information:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

Jim Travers

I always enjoyed reading Jim Travers. It was surprising to hear that he had died this week. He will be missed.