Tag: Stephane Dion

Stéphane Dion was leader of the Liberal Party of Canada from December 2006-December 2008.

Dion was elected leader of the Liberal Party after the resignation of Prime Minister Paul Martin after the Liberal election loss in 2006.

Dion’s leadership was marred by frequent gaffes and blunders and his inability to be an effective communicator. His interview with CTV’s Steve Murphy was a turning point in Liberal fortunes during the 2008 election. His hallmark Green Shift policy did not fare much better.

Ultimately, Dion’s mishandling of the 2008 coalition crisis – which saw the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc Quebecois forming a potential coalition government – resulted in the end of his leadership.

Life after leadership wasn’t bad to Stephane Dion. He served as Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Trudeau government and the Canadian Ambassador to Germany.

No spring election

What follows is a personal theory that I’ve been assembling from observation over the past month. There are only three people, I believe, in the Conservative Party who actually know about an election, and I’m certain that even they squabble over timing.

Here’s my take.

There won’t be an election this spring or summer.

First, the Conservatives have been doing everything in their power to convince us of the opposite. Consider the training conference that the party just held in Toronto. This affair was no small feat and if I were a Liberal watching from the outside, I’d be anxious. Further, the Conservatives just showed off their 17,000 sq. ft. war room to the media. Can you remember a party in recent history that has done something like this? Why show the media one of the cards in your election hand? Again, I believe that this had the effect of sending shock into the spines of Liberal Party officials.

Stephane Dion, and his communications and strategy teams have been reacting to Conservative actions rather than taking the time to forge out their own long-term plan. Instead, the best Dion has been able to muster so far has been to complain that Harper is being “unfair” and that the Conservatives are bullies. The Liberals have not even begun to effectively present and communicate a long term policy plan for Canadians to consider.

Stephen Harper is also enjoying some of the highest polling numbers that he’s ever experienced. He’s got the opportunity to plateau these numbers rather than pick the spike and hope he’s got enough of a gentle slope to ride down on the way to E-day. Back in 2004, when the news came out that Harper was in “majority territory”, this was the kiss of death. Soon after, Ontario voters reacted to the news in order to put Harper back into a comfortable place in their minds.

With respect to comfort, this has been a key aspect of the Conservative plan, in my opinion. Stephen Harper’s strategy has been in part to be the status quo Prime Minister. Harper and his planners have done everything in their power to prevent Canadians from thinking that they’re rocking the boat. Take the latest budget, for example. Conservatives looking for a conservative budget were largely disappointed. “This is a Liberal budget” they exclaimed. The budget was heavy on spending and par for the course for most Canadians. Harper is hardly causing earthquakes in Ottawa. In fact, the more that Stephen Harper can do to be the Prime Minister in the back of the minds of Canadians instead of in the front of their minds, the better.

Harper has indeed been enjoying polling numbers that would give him a majority government. Some analysts have remarked that the best ally that Stephen Harper has is time. The longer that he is Prime Minister, the more that the concept becomes comfortably entrenched in the minds of Canadians. Pair this with Harper’s status quo Prime Ministership and he can ride out high numbers without those numbers themselves becoming an offensive concept in the minds of Canadians. The summer is coming up and most will, as usual, disconnect from politics. The Prime Minister is hoping to be riding high going into the summer so that he can park his numbers there as Canadians get used to the concept of Harper in majority territory.

I’m also getting the feeling that Harper may ride out his numbers far enough so that media observers will go from blaming him from being opportunistic if he were to call an election, to questioning his political acumen for not calling an election with such a good position in the polls.

So, for those of you who think that Harper’s on the verge of calling (or orchestrating) an election, I think that it’s time to reassess. Perhaps that’s only what the Conservatives want you to think.

Then again, maybe they want you to think like me.

Press shuts down blogger

A couple of weeks ago, I headed down the street to Parliament Hill to cover the budget for my blog and for Blogging Tories. You can see the product of that effort here, here, here, and here. I have a Hill pass that indicates that I have been pre-screened by security and allows me access to a variety of places in the Parliamentary district. While hovering on the periphery of a budget-day scrum with Jack Layton, I was spotted by Elizabeth Thompson of the Montreal Gazette. She scolded me and expressed to this lowly blogger that he wasn’t allowed to scrum with Layton. Largely ignoring her, I continued to mind my own business and started to needlessly check my camera settings. Thompson alerted Parliamentary Press Gallery President Richard Brennan to my presence and minutes later, security asked me to leave the foyer area.

I left the hallway outside of the foyer and walked over to the railway room to interview some ‘stakeholders’ of the budget. This went off without incident and during that time, I cheerfully chatted with some reporters that were in the same room.

Having completed my interviews with the stakeholders, I left and headed on over to the Rotunda where I had a friendly chat with Jack Layton. Elizabeth May and her assistant were also hanging around chatting when I saw Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc walk by. Having heard that his party was the lone opposition party supporting the budget, I asked him for an interview. He agreed. After the interview something ugly happened.

An official from the Press Gallery walked over and informed me that he had received “complaints” about me. “Thompson?” I inquired. “Complaints”, he seemed to acknowledge. I pointed out that we were currently in the Rotunda of Parliament and that my pass allowed me to be there. “But you have a camera” he informed me. He called over a security guard to escort me from Parliament.

Unbelievable!

Yes, the Parliamentary Press Gallery, with no powers granted to it by constitution or statute, used security to remove somebody who had the right to be present on the Hill granted to him by the Speaker of the House.

A similar incident happened recently when two female staffers from the Conservative Resource Group were similarly removed from the Hill by security when the Liberals complained to the Gallery.

After the incident, the Prime Ministers office called the sergeant-at-arms (who works on behalf of the Speaker on Hill security) and was told that the Gallery and Liberals were wrong to ask for the ouster of the CRG staff from Dion scrums (and scrums in general).

Of course, this brings up a few questions. If security on the Hill is the responsibility of the Speaker, and if I have been granted access to most non-privileged areas of the Hill by the Speaker, what authority does an official of the PPG have in calling in the guard to have me removed from perhaps the most public area of the Hill? Elizabeth May was also present in the Rotunda, yet she is not an elected member, nor is she associated with an elected party in Parliament. She has also been granted security clearance to the Hill by the Speaker. So, is it the camera? What is so offensive about my camera? Since I am cleared to be present on the Hill, is it because I haven’t been cleared to use one of the Press Guild’s many tools? Would May be ejected by the Gallery if she was in possession of a camera? What if I am invited by a politician to use my camera on the Hill? Is this forbidden? Was this interview with Jack Layton in the NDP leader’s office violating some unwritten rule of the media powers that be? Does the CRG/Dion Hill incident (and the aftermath) set a precedent for my presence (with camera) on the Hill? Again, why does the power reside in a largely unelected, unaccountable body of Parliament that is not defined by statute? I’ve made a sport out of taking on institutions with artificial and inflated senses of entitlement, maybe the Press Gallery is next.

Or, you may ask, why don’t I just suck it up and join this all-powerful guild as some of the friendlier gallery-folk have suggested? I’ve always been unsure about this move as I am a declared partisan, yet I am not employed by the Conservative Party. Still, should partisan media exist? Should it be allowed? Since this blog is de facto media and it already operates in a partisan manner, should the CRTC or Elizabeth Thompson shut it down? Frankly, I can understand reasons against ‘official’ recognition of my media status in the Parliamentary precinct. After all, couldn’t I flood Conservatives with long and friendly press conference questions to waste time? (yes). Would I? (no). Would I sell out my media brethren and sign up for ‘the list’? (yes).

But then again, the game is changing and bloggers are becoming a new category in a variety of forums they intersect. Will the next evolutionary phase be a smooth one or will it require direct action?

As the concept of “press” is being redefined to include bloggers, perhaps we shouldn’t be so surprised that some of the “officials” that are trampling on our rights include members of the “dead tree” division of the guild we wish to complement.

UPDATE: I’ve been told that I am ineligible for membership in the Parliamentary Press Gallery because I am not employed as a journalist by any organization. Do you think that the evolution of media and reporting should change some of the traditions and practices on parliament hill?