The following post contains an archived copy of my past commentary on another forum.
In a post at Creekside about Stephen Harper's handling of the scandal involving his Chief of Staff's cash gift to a sitting legislator — and it was a cash gift even if there were terms attached — Alison adds a message to the leader of the Official Opposition that bears repeating:
"Dear Mr Mulcair : Stop giving Steve an assist by helping him frame this as being just about the need to reform/abolish the Senate. Bigger fish here, Tom. Knock it off."
A prime minister whose original campaign to lead the country was all about accountability is now facing a scandal that has reached into his inner sanctum and brought down his Chief of Staff and yet he continues to treat it like a distraction that has nothing to do with him. Add this to all the other crimes against accountability on Harper's rap sheet, and if the best the Official Opposition can make of it is "Abolish the Senate!" then maybe I should just give up and start blogging the Blue Jays. - Pogge
Pogge,
As you have not cited any speech or incident, I presume you are referring to the NDP's "Roll *Up* The Red Carpet" campaign? (RURC henceforth...)
If so, then you & "CreekSide" are woefully confused. Both about the campaign & the Canadian electorate.
The RURC campaign is a limited campaign - targeted at the engaged political-class. Hence, its relegation to an obscure website & social media chatter. This targeted class of voters represent a tiny fraction of the actual electorate. Within this "minority", few are liable to change party affiliation - but they are liable to support specific policy positions.
The engaged political-class is currently fixated on the conduct of particular senators. RURC merely takes advantage of this fixation - and offers a factual & sentimental basis for prolonged hostility towards this corrupt institution. Such hostility will provide a future federal NDP government the "space" to challenge (and with more effort, defeat) a potentially sabotaging & obstructionist senate.
As for the wider electorate, you are correct that they require a "clarification": this is a Conservative leadership & party scandal. But such a clarification will only be imposed through commercial advertising - or - an actual federal campaign. These are the only environments where this large mass-of-voters bother to pay attention.
To justify such an "investment", the NDP need potent ammunition. Apparently, you are oblivious to their efforts in this regard. To gain official cover, the NDP (early on) asked the RCMP to investigate. To weaken the enemy, the NDP has successfully used its time in the house & talkies to expose Conservative deficiencies & fabrications. Once this ammunition is sufficient & organized, I look forward to a slaughter.
I do not mind you craving such a slaughter, Pogge. But I do take exception to you swallowing Liberal spin so easily.
Do not give up so easily,
Dan Tan
An obscure website like the Globe and Mail?
NDP’s Mulcair takes aim at Senate abolition
"The scandal unfolding in the Senate is giving new momentum to NDP calls for abolition. Leader Thomas Mulcair says he and his New Democrats will be talking to Canadians about the need to eliminate the Senate, and he promises that its demise will be a key plank of the party’s next election campaign."
Mulcair is actively working to make the conversation about the abolition of the Senate which is exactly what Alison and I suggested he's doing. It's a mistake. It will help the Conservatives change the subject. - Pogge
Pogge,
You merely cited an article which recounted the *presentation* of the "RURC" campaign. You seem quite offended that Mulcair would dare explain the "RURC" campaign to reporters and assert that it is a serious long-term priority for the NDP.
Do you assume that the large mass of disengaged voters routinely follow "political reporting"?
Do you assume that a routine article recounting an NDP policy presentation will sway this disengaged mass from their disinterest & distraction?
Do you assume that the NDP's work disassembling Conservative defenses (in the house & during political talkies) is not generating valuable ammunition for a future public campaign against the Conservatives?
You are entitled to such false assumptions,
Dan Tan
This isn't me being offended. This is me suggesting that Mulcair is making a tactical error.
"Mr. Mulcair said he also plans to talk to provinces and territories and will back up the fight with an advertising campaign."
And that's Mulcair suggesting that he will continue to press the issue and make the Senate and its existence the focus of the conversation. Once again, I think it's the wrong move. I think it's bad timing. I think it changes the subject and in so doing, helps the Conservatives. - Pogge
Pogge,
You keep insisting that there is such a thing as a perpetual "national conversation" in Canada - and that the political press serve as moderators.
Hence, you fear that the slightest deviation from a message of "Conservative scandal!" will somehow "distract" the audience.
This conception of our political environment is the product of your imagination.
The "national conversation" is not perpetual. When parliament does its routine business, the "conversation" is limited to a tiny class of politically engaged voters. They consist of activists, lobbyists, academics, and party employees.
The rest - the large mass of disengaged voters - require the intervention of an imminent election deadline, or sustained advertising...to even consider paying attention to our political system.
So keep Mulcair's future "plan" to "talk to provinces and territories" & "back up the fight with an advertising campaign"...in perspective. Apart from the ads, his bi-partisan campaign will only be noticed within the tiny political class.
Mulcair has also promised to "define" our rivals. When the time is appropriate, and the ammunition is ready...the larger mass of voters will be alerted about Conservative sins through a separate campaign - tailored to their language & priorities.
Wars can be fought on many fronts - against a diversity of enemies,
Dan Tan
The trouble with this as such an intensive NDP media push on a "national conversation" at this time is that this current scandal is so much bigger than the relatively small part in it played by the Senate. The meat of it is in the PMO and we need our leader of the opposition to be pounding that one home to what you refer to as "the large mass of disengaged voters" he is in his own words reaching out to here. - Alison
Alison,
You have a grossly inflated estimation of the influence of our press - especially devoid of an impending election/referendum. They are usually the first to admit how limited their audience is.
You are also grossly exaggerating the impact any politician can have. "Cross Country Campaigning" outside of an election/referendum amounts to barely reported speeches to sympathetic activists (briefly mentioned on barely viewed news programs). And any meetings a federal opposition leader has with provincial leaders will amount to brief exchanges - rather than nationally televised debates which interrupt evening entertainment.
You are entitled to these misconceptions.
But I grow weary of the continuing omission.
Everyday brings forth more house & talk-show evidence of the NDP interrogating & embarrassing Conservatives on their scandal. The NDP has been quite successful, exposing hints of dishonesty & guilt.
These exchanges are being recorded & organized. They will be analyzed along with other past & future revelations. When the NDP feels it has enough potent material to initiate an actual campaign against the Conservatives - evening entertainment will be briefly interrupted with a dire warning from the official opposition.
I would merely reiterate that we enlightened & engaged voters are a tiny minority - not representative of the mass voting public. Communicating with this disengaged mass is expensive (especially for the financially deprived NDP), and such an investment will only be made when the party is confident in its ammunition.
Yours in repetition,
Dan Tan
