Fisking the Tory talking points

I was quite interested to see the Tory talking points that were mailed out to their loyal supporters in order to have them not only phone up talk radio, but also use identical arguments. I'm very grateful to the Montréal Gazette [http://tinyurl.com/5qcgby] for getting a copy of this document and running it for the rest of Canadians who don't happen to be members of Steven Harper's Foot Soldiers TM.

Unfortunately, Harper doesn't do his foot soldiers and any favors when it comes to making them look smart. The "arguments" that he furnishes them with are, by and large, either pointless, pure propaganda or dependent on a logical fallacy. Let's have a look.

1. "Is anyone else outraged by what the opposition parties are doing in Ottawa?"

Pure propaganda, no logical content.

This line item exists for the purpose of linking "outrage" to the words "Opposition Parties", in order to imply that the Opposition has been doing something outrageous.

2. "We are not even two months removed from the last election, and a group of backroom politicians are going to pick with the prime minister is. Canadians didn't vote for this person. We don't even know who this person will be."

Propaganda, presenting the idea that backroom manipulations are circumventing the democratic process. Considering that Harper's Conservatives are under extraordinarily rigid control, considering that Harper put an unelected official into the Senate quite happily when he was first elected, and considering that last month's Tory convention in Winnipeg was hermetically sealed even to many party faithful, he has no right to accuse the opposition of using these tactics -- and in actual fact the opposition is using perfectly legitimate parliamentary procedure.

3. "Not a single voter voted for a liberal -- NDP coalition. Certainly not a single voter voted for the Liberals to form a coalition with the separatists in the block."

Pure nonsense. A coalition wasn't part of the voting process, so no one could have voted for it. However, quite a number of people declared themselves to be ABC voters, which at least implies a willingness to support a coalition.

A second element of this paragraph talks about the Bloc Québecois as "separatists". The talking point covertly dismisses the Bloc, and thus Quebecers, as being un-Canadian. This can hardly be soothing to the 1.3 million people who voted for the Bloc. Does Harper want to be reminding the Bloc that they're seperatists?

4. "(Add to the above)... what's worse the Liberals even promised that there wouldn't be a coalition with the NDP --. this is all about power, all about money and they don't even want to face the voters.”

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot. Harper's Conservatives, the youngest political party in Canada, exists at all because of a broken promise. Harper himself has shown no hesitation in breaking promises without a backward glance. (For instance, the taxation of income trusts.)

As far as the phrase “…this is all about power, all about money and they don't even want to face the voters.” This is an example of the Republican tactic of accusing your opponent of precisely the thing that you yourself are doing.

The federal funding of political parties was put in place to somewhat separate monied interests from the political process, and as a trade-off for the corporate dollars lost through restrictions of those donations. I have not heard the Conservatives mention lifting those restrictions along with the lifting of the federal money. Considering how expensive a political campaign is, especially the travel and the advertising, the amounts being paid to parties are woefully inadequate, and are dwarfed by the cost of the election itself -- which the taxpayer also shoulders. This last election cost each and every Canadian about $10 apiece. To add $1.95 per voter (not per citizen) to that tab in order to support the party that a voter actually voted for hardly seems exorbitant.

5. "This is what bothers me the most. The Conservatives won the election. The Opposition keeps saying that the Conservatives have to respect the will of the voters, that this is a minority, and so on."

This argument lays out a false dichotomy. Unlike the United States, there are not two parties in Canada, the Conservatives versus the Opposition. There are, in fact, lots, of which five are big enough to to run with the big dogs. By a large margin, most Canadians did not vote for the Conservatives.

And by the way -- in a parliamentary system, unlike the American system, the Conservatives really do have to respect the will of the voters, and also the will of Parliament. They have a minority government, so they get to stand up front for the overripe fruit and rotten eggs, but don't get to do anything they please. Harper gets to have dinner with the Queen but this does not mean he is the Leader of the Pack.

6. "... how about Liberals, NDP and Bloc respecting the will of the voters when they said "YOU LOSE"."

Unlike the American system, the Canadian system elects MPs, and when those MPs are counted up, the result indicates who gets the overripe fruit. Each constituency elects one MP, and that MP legitimately wins on his or her own merits. In Canada, at least at the time of writing, the Conservatives have only 37% of MPs, while "the Opposition" has the rest. In light of this, it's difficult to see how Harper can say that the voters said "you lose" to everybody except him.

7. "And what's this going to do to the economy. I'm sorry, I don't care how desperate the Liberals are -- giving Socialists (Jack Layton) and separatists (Gilles Duceppe) a veto over every decision in government -- that is a recipe for total economic disaster."

Several layers to this one, first labeling the Liberals as desperate. This actually might be true -- the first truth we have run across in this dissection. However, just because someone is desperate does not mean that their policies are incorrect. It's a separate issue.

Secondly, the unnamed writer of these talking points doesn't seem to understand Canadians very well. In the United States, "socialist" is a dirty word. In Canada, it's a way of life. And as far as Duceppe and the Bloc are concerned, things are comparatively peaceful in Quebec at the moment, and unlikely to get worse unless Mr. Harper keeps poking at them with cultural pointed sticks.

And finally, the unnamed writer invokes total economic disaster. True, Canada is unlikely to escape the backwash of a foundering USA. However, we are in far better shape than almost any other developed nation, although over the past few years the surplus that Paul Martin left behind has been somewhat eroded. Times may be tough over the next two or three years -- they are unlikely to be catastrophic.

However -- if Harper (or his talking-point manufacturer) really believes that Canada is on the brink of " total economic disaster" then what the hell is he doing playing petty politics?

8. "Here is what is bothering me about all of the back room opposition coalition talk..."

Again with the word "back room". Does the unnamed writer of these talking points really expect anyone to believe that politics is done without consultation behind-the-scenes? Particularly Harper’s Conservatives, who seem to do everything far away from the public eye -- even their campaigning?


9. "Sure it bothers me that parties Canadians rejected are trying to seize power through the back door"

As noted above, the Canadians did not reject these parties, these are all parties that ran lots of candidates and earned large numbers of Canadian votes. And secondly they are employing perfectly legitimate procedures in considering a coalition.

10. "But how much more phony could these guys be?"

I don't know, as phony as a fuzzy blue sweater on a shark?

11. "I mean, I follow the news, virtually every single day you have Harper or Flaherty out there telegraphing exactly what they plan to do with the economy. And not once do you hear the Liberals, NDP or separatists talking about toppling the government in response."

Parts of this are partly true. Certainly until now it has only been the more fiery members of the un-Conservative parties who have speculated about a coalition, although plenty of bloggers have. Until now, Harper has skillfully walked a tightrope between the greater or lesser smelliness of his legislation and the nuisance of voting no-confidence and heading for an election. But now, I think that the non-Harper parties have finally snapped and gotten completely fed up with having Harper yank their chains on a constant basis, while losing weeks out of the limited working time of the 40th Canadian Parliament.

The other part of this talking point concerns the constant telegraphing of Conservative plans for the economy. Perhaps I have missed it, or perhaps it is being telegraphed in Morse code.

12. "No --- do you know what set this off. When Flaherty said he was going to take a taxpayer-funded subsidies away from the Opposition. Now there is a reason to try and overturn an election -- because the Conservatives have the audacity to say "hey, it's a recession, maybe you should take your nose out of the trough."

First, no one has mentioned Harper wants this defunding to take place retroactively. I wonder how many bills remain to be paid by parties who had planned their campaigns with this money in mind? Changing the rules after the cards are on the table is hardly a fair procedure, especially considering that vote-based funding was the law of the land (and still is) when Harper ignored the spirit of his own election law and pushed Canada into a entirely uncalled for $300 million election.

Secondly, $30 million really is small change, compared to the huge numbers needing to be juggled. All three of the cuts in the mini-budget dealt with penny-ante concerns which would annoy a very large number of people while saving a very small amount of money.

And Harper has not said how that money is going to be replaced -- in the absence of big donations from labor or from corporations. Perhaps what all the parties should do is raise money until an election is called, put it into a pool, and then split that money five ways among them.. After all, wouldn't it be fair if all parties started from the gate with no differences except the quality of their candidates and their policies?

13. "And I wish the media would be more clear on this point -- the Opposition aren't being singled out by this fact the Conservatives stand to lose the most money of all. The only difference is that Canadians are voluntarily giving money the Conservatives so they don't need taxpayer handouts. The only reason the Opposition would be hurt more is because nobody wants to donate to them. They should be putting their efforts towards fixing that problem"

We should all know the word "disingenuous". This unknown writer is stating that the Conservatives will lose the most money of all in scrapping this funding. While true, they hardly need it this time around, since they have barrels of money.

Again we see the squishing together of all the non-Conservative parties into one big "Opposition" party, and then the suggestion that the Opposition Party doesn’t have money because they need better fundraising.

Of course, that taxpayer funding comes directly from the voters, and in direct proportion to the number of votes they cast for that party’s candidates. Thirty million Canadians, $30 million dollars. That’s hardly a burden on the nation.

14. And finally -- "I don't want another election. But what I want to even less is a surprise back room prime minister whom I never even had the opportunity to vote for or against. What an insult to democracy."

What I want to know is, where are these "back room's"? Again we have the implication of something shady, like smalltime gangsters meeting in the back room of a pool hall. I am sure that at the moment the opposition parties are meeting everywhere except pool halls -- most likely convention rooms in hotels, just like all other legitimate associations.

The unnamed writer again shows he is unfamiliar with parliamentary procedure. Hammering together a coalition is one of many permissible ways to run Canada. Doing it privately is permissable, probably wise, and certainly not out of line with Harper's modus operandi.

As for insulting democracy, I have a real problem with the Conservatives running campaign attack ads for months, and then forcing an actual election, therefore escaping a big chunk the election spending caps that are imposed on all the other parties. What an insult to democracy. Right?